sacred places at risk
TRANSCRIPT
New Evidence On How Endangered Older Churches
And Synagogues Serve Communities
Sacred PlacesAt Risk
1616 Walnut Street, Suite 2310Philadelphia, PA 19103Phone: (215) 546-1288 Fax: (215) 546-1180Email: [email protected]: www.sacredplaces.org
Sacred PlacesAt Risk
Partners for Sacred Places
New Evidence On HowEndangered Older Churches AndSynagogues Serve Communities
by Diane Cohen and A. Robert Jaeger
Foreword by Dr.William J. Bennett and U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman
© 1998
About Partners forSacred Places
Partners for Sacred Places is a national, non-profit, non-sectarianorganization founded in 1989 to help Americans embrace, care for andmake good use of older and historic religious properties. Partners hasthree primary goals: 1) to help congregations and their communities begood stewards of their sacred places; 2) to develop an effective nationalnetwork of advocates for sacred places; and 3) to enhance public under-standing of the value of sacred places as irreplaceable centers that createand sustain community life.
For more information, please contact:
Partners for Sacred Places
1616 Walnut Street, Suite 2310
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 546-1288 Fax: (215) 546-1180
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.sacredplaces.org
Table of Contents
Foreword By Dr.William J. Bennett and U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman .............................................................2
Acknowledgements...............................................................................3
Executive Summary ..............................................................................4
CHAPTER 1: The Public Value Of Sacred Places.....................................6
CHAPTER 2: Who Benefits From Older Sacred Places? .......................10
CHAPTER 3: Sacred Places. . . Plus ......................................................15
CHAPTER 4: Why Congregations In Older Sacred Places?...................20
CHAPTER 5: Marking Streets, Marking Lives .......................................25
CHAPTER 6: Older Sacred Places At Risk............................................29
CHAPTER 7: Where Do We Go From Here? .......................................33
Postscript............................................................................................36
Study Methodology And Consultant Team .........................................38
Case Examples....................................................................................39
List of Participating Congregations .....................................................44
Photo Credits .....................................................................................46
1
Forewordby Dr.William J. Bennett and U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman
Most of us already know that sacred places — in this case, historic inner-city congregations — are important community “institutions” playingindispensable roles in areas often ravaged by drugs, poverty, and familybreakdown.We know this from everyday experience. Sacred Places at Risk,however, provides empirical evidence. It shows what congregations do andhelps explain how they do it. It confirms statistically what many of us knowanecdotally: that older urban churches and synagogues save lives.Theyrebuild men, women, children, indeed entire neighborhoods.
Nine out of ten congregations with pre-1940 buildings provide space forcommunity activities like soup kitchens,“latchkey” programs, music anddrama activities, and food pantries. Most congregations support several suchprograms. On average, they provide more than 5,300 hours of volunteersupport a year.These are just two findings from Sacred Places at Risk,which is based on interviews at 107 older churches and four older syna-gogues in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Indianapolis, Mobile, Oakland,and San Francisco. Again, common sense fortified with empirical evidence.Congregations make a difference, especially in places where differences mustbe made.
But there are problems. Many sacred places are in fragile physical andfinancial condition. Last-minute repairs alone cost the average congregation$50,000 a year. One fifth of the 111 buildings had structural damage.Thecongregations expect to spend, on average, $225,000 to repair their build-ings. Sacred Places at Risk forces us to confront the possibility of a worldwithout these institutions.
One of the most important public-policy debates of our time is whether,and in what manner, we support our religious institutions. How that issue isresolved will go a long way toward determining what kind of society webecome. It is our hope that Sacred Places at Risk will call attention to thesematters, helping to mobilize the will and resources necessary to make theseplaces whole again.We now have compelling evidence that sacred places areshared places that serve people of all faiths and of all stations. As a sensiblesociety, we should not be prejudiced against what works, even if what workshappens to take place in a sacred place.These places should stay, for theirgood work endures.Their results are too important, and now all too obvi-ous, to ignore.
AcknowledgementsPartners would like to thank the following circle of funders who have
supported the research and dissemination of the findings presented in thisbook: Furthermore, the publication program of the J. M. Kaplan Fund; theGraham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts; the Samuel H.Kress Foundation; the Lilly Endowment Inc.;The Henry Luce Foundation;the National Endowment for the Arts; the Johanna Favrot Fund of theNational Trust for Historic Preservation; and the Trinity Grants Program.Weowe a very special thanks to the Lilly Endowment, whose early and gener-ous support of this project was instrumental in bringing us to this point.
The public release of the research findings at the National Press Clubwould not have been possible without the strategic support and assistance ofJohn J. DiIulio, Jr., Executive Director of the Partnership for Research onReligion and At-Risk Youth, and Douglas Dillon Senior Fellow at TheBrookings Institution, and Mark Alan Hughes,Vice President ofPublic/Private Ventures. For the “town meeting” at The BrookingsInstitution we want to thank E.J. Dionne, Senior Fellow in GovernmentalStudies and a columnist at The Washington Post.We express our gratitude toLuis Lugo, Director of the Religion Program at the Pew Charitable Trusts,and The Brookings Institution for funding and sponsoring the public launchof the findings at the heart of this book.
We are much indebted to Ann de Forest, who capably and creativelyshaped this book, and Steege/Thomson Communications, who helped gar-ner media attention nationwide. Partners’ staff worked seamlessly to preparefor the Washington events; special thanks are due to Tuomi Forrest for thecase examples included here.
Many people contributed to conceptualizing and guiding the researchthat led to this book. Advisory Committee members included NancyAmmerman, Peter Dobkin Hall, Ellen Netting, Ginny Thornburgh andElliott Wright. Partners’ Board of Directors devoted many hours to publicpolicy discussion, our thanks especially to Thomas F. Pike, James P.Windand Anthony C.Wood for their leadership.
All members of our research team — Ram A. Cnaan, Gaynor Yancey,Robert Wineburg, Ken Jacobs and Mark Brack — worked above andbeyond our expectations. It is their commitment of knowledge, talent andtime that made this undertaking a success.
We want to thank our local partners who helped us assemble master listsof congregations with older and historic properties in each city where ourstudy was conducted: the Foundation for San Francisco’s ArchitecturalHeritage; the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana; InspiredPartnerships (Chicago); the Mobile Historic Development Commission; theNew York Landmarks Conservancy; and the Preservation Alliance forGreater Philadelphia.
And lastly, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the 111 congregationsacross six cities who participated in this project.Their clergy, lay leaders andprogram staff gave very generously of their time and energy, as they sharedtheir stories of sacrifice and service on behalf of communities in need.
2 3
Here are some of Partners’ key findings:
❖ 93% of all surveyed congregations with olderbuildings open their doors to the larger com-munity.
❖ On average, congregations house four ongoingcommunity service programs.
❖ For every congregation member served, morethan four individuals from outside the congre-gation benefit from the community serviceprograms supported by churches and syna-gogues.
❖ Congregations with older buildings host 76% oftheir community service in their own facilities.
❖ Children and youth benefit from congrega-tion-supported service programs more thanany other group.
❖ More than 75% of congregations use theirolder buildings to meet basic human needsthrough food and clothing programs.
❖ The average congregation provides over 5,300hours of volunteer support to its communityprograms, the equivalent of two and a half full-time volunteers stationed year-round at thechurch or synagogue.
❖ On average, the subsidy provided by congrega-tions to their community programs is about$140,000 a year, or 16 times what they receivein return from the users of their space.
❖ The vast majority of community programssupported by churches and synagogues areinitiated by congregations.
❖ Twenty-one percent of all the congregationsstudied are facing the expense of majorstructural work on their buildings.
❖ The average congregation will have to spendmore than $225,000 over the next several yearsto repair its building, straining the budgets of allbut the most affluent churches and synagogues.
5
For years, Partners for Sacred Places has had to depend upon anecdo-tal information to make its case for the importance of sustaining andpreserving America’s older and historic religious properties.Thanks tothe national study of over 100 congregations with pre-1940 propertiesin six cities commissioned by Partners and profiled in this book, we arenow equipped with dramatic findings that will help us make this casemuch more powerfully.
Our findings demonstrate two key realities in American life: first,older sacred places are vibrant and productive centers of community ser-vice that benefit the public at large. Second, they are at risk because oftheir age and often fragile physical condition. At a time when govern-ment is downsizing and asking the private sector to do more to meethuman needs, these facts will help leaders in the public and private sec-tors understand how congregations serve their communities.They alsounderscore the vulnerability of key resources such as the older buildingsthat house these services.
Partners is committed to sharing this understanding of “older sacredplaces at risk” and encouraging a new conversation among funders, gov-ernment agencies, civic leaders and other decision-makers that willprompt new resources and partnerships.These partnerships are key to sus-taining the older sacred places that benefit us all.
4
Executive Summary
Letting sacred places crumble or close — failing
to give them the corporate, philanthropic and other
support they need to keep the walls from falling
and the pipes from bursting is tantamount to
losing millions and millions of dollars a year in
vitally needed anti-poverty and community-
building efforts.
John J. DiIulio, Jr.
These remarkable findings make it clear that congregations give generously to their commu-nities, but at the expense of keeping up with the care of their buildings. Both sacred places andthe programs they house are at risk.These findings are a call to action. Partners is committed tofinding new ways of sustaining sacred places in the years to come.
7
1.The Public Value OfSacred Places
Prince of Peace Catholic Church in Mobile,Alabama is a handsome,1874-vintage, red brick building located not far from the city’s civic
center. No blazing sign on its lawn indicates that anything very remark-able happens there. But visit the church any day of the week, and youwill find a hubbub of activity behind the quiet exterior: parents drop-ping their children off for day care; community leaders planning acrime-watch program; neighbors taking advantage of free health screen-ings performed by volunteer nurses and doctors; and seniors socializingover a meal or a hand of bridge.
In name, Prince of Peace is a church; in function, it is a true communitycenter. Its extensive programs are not limited to parishioners or evenCatholics: Prince of Peace brings together black and white, Catholic,Protestant and Jewish. At a time when mutual distrust all too often dividesraces, cultures and traditions, Prince of Peace’s inclusiveness is something tocelebrate.
Prince of Peace’s involvement in community service may not seem allthat unusual.Traditionally, churches and synagogues have always openedtheir doors to those in need. Until now, however, the substantiation ofthat public role has been more anecdotal than scientific. Now, a major,new study commissioned by Partners forSacred Places has documented, for the firsttime, how extensively and pervasivelyAmerica’s older congregational buildingsserve the public at large. For most of theweek, in virtually every space available,America’s older religious buildings are sharedplaces, which bring the greater communitytogether — linking the desire to serve with theneed to be served.
The National Pattern ofCommunity Service
Americans have long treasured the freedom of all citizens to worshipfreely, and to gather in a place set apart for this holy purpose. Churchesand synagogues provide that place; the day of worship brings congregationstogether to celebrate through music, prayer, preaching and teaching.
But the history of religious properties in America is also inextricablytied with a broader vision of community.The earliest churches doubledas town halls and village centers. As those villages grew to metropolises,the religious community found new ways to design and use their build-ings to serve the changing needs of growing populations.
At the turn of this century, many urban congregations adopted a “socialgospel” that welcomed poor and immigrant people that had nowhere elseto turn.To support that agenda, they hired the era’s best architects to designambitious, imposing facilities, some with gymnasia, theaters, bowling alleys,and meeting rooms adjacent to the main sanctuary. Now, contending with
Many programs in our
community would not happen
if we, and other churches, did
not share our space.We don’t
have much money, but we
can share our building.
8
Our Shared Stake
That so many congregations serve so manypeople in need so generously is an overlookedand important reality. Modestly, almost invisibly,America’s congregations with older propertiesgo about their daily business, providing thelion’s share of their community services in theirown facilities.Together, they form the nation’sbroadest network of community centers.
Sacred places are a “natural” resource, centralto the life of cities, towns and neighborhoodsacross this nation. Like other natural resources,they are ubiquitous and essential, nurturing andinspiring, available to all. Like other naturalresources, they are also fragile and irreplaceable.Now that we know how vital sacred places are tothe shared life of the community, we also knowthat the larger public shares a stake in their sur-vival.
9
Congregations ProvidingCommunity Programs
Congregations Not ProvidingCommunity Programs
93%
7%
Congregations That ProvideCommunity Programs
Programs Housed Exclusively in Older or Historic Religious Buildings
Programs Housed Elsewhere
24%
76%
Percentage of Congregation-SupportedCommunity Programs Located in Olderor Historic Sacred Places
flight, blight, and other adversities, these sameinner-city congregations have adapted theirproperties again and again to address their com-munities’ changing needs.
Because most congregational facilities con-tain a complex and flexible cluster of spaces,there are many opportunities for a church orsynagogue to share its older property duringthe week. And most congregations have takensteps to take advantage of those opportunities,resulting in a remarkable pattern of service, asfollows:
Congregation-hosted communityservice is universal.
Sharing their own resources and facilities isthe primary way that congregations translatebelief into action. Indeed, 93 out of 100congregations actively serve the largercommunity and make their buildingsavailable to outreach programs, a pattern sopervasive that it crosses denominational, racialand regional lines.
Congregation-hosted communityservice is substantial.
The average congregation supports nofewer than four ongoing programs that servepeople in need. Hyde Park Union Church inChicago, just one example, houses a ParentSupport Network, several self-help groups, achapter of Habitat for Humanity, a youthorchestra, the Black Oral History Project ofthe University of Chicago, a seminary-spon-sored African American Leadership Project,and several recreational programs.These ongo-ing, regularly scheduled, and long-termprograms are offered in addition to the manyoccasional, one-time programs and services,such as couples counseling or communitymeetings, that occur as needed.
Congregations with older buildingshost most community service on-site.
Indeed, 76% of all service and outreachoffered or supported by congregations takesplace solely in their older properties. TheRev. Susan Johnson, pastor of Hyde ParkChurch, puts it this way:“Many programs inour community would not happen if we, andother churches, did not share our space.Wedon’t have much money, but we can share ourbuilding.”
More often than not,“sharing our building”means offering a cluster of spaces of varyingsizes and capacities, including parish halls,Sunday School rooms, auditoriums and offices.These spaces, originally constructed at a timewhen urban populations were growing andreligious institutions had ambitious social agen-das, have proved infinitely adaptable to today’sneeds: religious education classrooms nowserve public school systems; large meetingrooms double as community theaters; fellow-ship halls are converted into day care centers.
In many cases, these spaces come completewith “staff”: administrative and custodial staffare often available to provide support to thevarious groups and individuals who make useof the property, and lay volunteers, who feelcomfortable and familiar with their ownchurch or synagogue, often like to pitch in tohelp in a building to which they have suchstrong connections.
Congregation-hosted communityservice is selfless.
“The church is not a museum...it belongsto the people in the neighborhood.Thecongregation is the custodian of the buildings,not ‘owner’,” states the Rev. Peter Larson atTabernacle Presbyterian Church inIndianapolis. Many urban congregations sharehis view.The result: among people whobenefit from community programs housed incongregational buildings, non-members out-number members of the host congregationby a ratio of 4.2 to 1.
This statistic is especially notable consider-ing that congregations increasingly draw theirmembers from well beyond the immediateneighborhoods where their buildings are locat-ed.When it comes to outreach, even churchesand synagogues with “commuting” member-ships remain neighborhood-centered. Areligious property’s presence in a community,therefore, has a substantive impact on thosewho live and work nearby; they are the primebeneficiaries of a congregation’s compassion.
Program Users who are Non-Members
Program Users who are Congregation Members
19%
81%
Beneficiaries of Community Programs:Congregation Members vs. Non-Members
10 11
2.Who Benefits FromOlder Sacred Places?
In the soup kitchen at historic Allen ChapelA.M.E. in Indianapolis, 350 people eat din-
ner every Wednesday evening. Seven womendo the cooking. Says one of the cooks:“weserve people as if they were our own familiesand we never give less than we would eat our-selves.”The description is typical. Any day ofthe week, in older congregational buildingsnationwide, similar programs are being offeredin the same generous spirit — without judg-ment or prejudice.Young or old, healthy or ill,rich or poor, lonely or contented — all aremade welcome.
The majority of congregations — some93% of those included in Partners’ study —open their doors for community service pro-grams of the kind described here.Congregations make use of their older build-ings to house, on average, four major programs,in addition to the more informal andimpromptu services many offer.When ourinterviews began, we could only guess at whatthe range of these programs might be. In theend, we found an astonishing variety: from a listof 200 possible programs, there is hardly an areain which congregations are not active.Thisdiversity attests to congregational ability torespond to the very particular needs of theirindividual communities, to reach every sector ofour society, and to address the most pressingsocial issues of our day. Here are some high-lights from our findings:
❖ Specific populations congregations serveinclude families, seniors, children and youth,the poor and the homeless, refugees and immi-grants.
❖ Congregations tackle difficult civic andsocial issues, through services ranging fromprison ministry to urban improvementprojects and housing rehabilitation.
❖ To serve seniors, many congregations pairthe homebound with a buddy; over 40% ofour congregations provide this service.
❖ From latchkey programs to “Mother’sMorning Out,” many congregations assistfamilies juggling the demands of work andchild care.
❖ Health programs serve people of all ages,focusing on everything from substance abuseto nutrition, from developmental disabilitiesto HIV, providing health education, healthscreening, and full-service medical clinics.
❖ Adults can take advantage of literacy classes,GED and ESL programs, along with occa-sional job training and job placement.
While there is great diversity in the types ofprograms offered, certain trends are clear.Congregations typically house programs intheir older buildings that:
❖ meet basic human needs,
❖ serve families — especially children andyouth,
❖ bring the arts into local neighborhoods,
❖ serve as centers of culture for immigrantsand ethnic groups, and
❖ provide space for innumerable communityor neighborhood-based organizations.
1312
Congregations use their older buildings to meet basicneeds.
Allen Chapel A.M.E. is one of many congregations working to fillthe gap as government assistance programs for the poor are receding bymeeting needs that revolve around day-to-day subsistence.We foundthat over 60% of our study congregations operate food pantries, justover 50% have clothing closets, and over 40% run soup kitchens. Almosta third provide services and support for homeless men and women.
These are no-frills programs — meeting the most basic of humanneeds.Taken together, they paint a picture of life in our study commu-nities — and in inner-city communities elsewhere.The NorthPhiladelphia neighborhood which is home to the turn-of-the-century,Gothic-style Mars Hill Baptist Church, for example, has suffered a severeloss of both population and jobs. Mars Hill’s pastor says his “main pur-pose” is to change the area for the better. His congregation welcomes300 to 400 people every week to its soup kitchen — one component inthe larger effort by congregations to repair the social fabric.
Congregations use their olderbuildings to serve families,especially children and youth.
Children and youth — more often than anyother population — benefit from the programsand services congregations house. Day care,tutoring, summer camp, and after-school activi-ties that are both recreational and educationalare among the wide range of programs offered.Of our study congregations, 45% have recreation-al programs devoted to teens and 42% foryounger children. Congregations also have amajor presence in areas such as pre-school daycare, which is offered by 25% of our study con-gregations.
A glance at these programs makes clear thatthey reflect the needs of today’s many familieswith two working parents, as well as single par-ents.These are programs families depend on toprovide for the care of their children close towork or home. Families also look to congrega-tions for parenting classes, which 35% of ourstudy congregations offer.
Many of the programs for children andyouth provide opportunities for young peoplewho could be described as at-risk.VictoryMemorial United Methodist Church inIndianapolis, for example, runs a summer pro-gram called the Fountain Square Youth Corps.Here young men learn about concepts such asteamwork, communication and self-control.The same kind of learning takes place at MarsHill Baptist Church. In an after-school conflictresolution session, kids learn to “focus on thepositive attributes of another person, to learnfrom their negative feelings, to control theiractions and build their self-confidence.”
Although congregations host a significantfraction of scouting and other traditional recre-ational programs (such as those sponsored bypolice athletic leagues) they do not take placein the same numbers as other services.Thus,these activities –– traditionally associated withcongregations –– are not, in fact, as common asother programs serving children.
Any day of the week, in older congregational buildings nationwide,
programs are offered with a generous spirit and without judgment or
prejudice. Young or old, healthy or ill, rich or poor, lonely or
contented — all are made welcome.
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Food
Pan
try
Mus
ic P
erfo
rman
ce
Clot
hing
Clo
sets
Teen
Rec
reat
ion
Partn
ersh
ips
with
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
d Gr
oups
Soup
Kitc
hen
0%
Programs Most Frequently Hosted by Congregations
15
3.Sacred Places…Plus
14
Congregations with older buildingsprovide homes for the arts.
About 80% of our study congregations areinvolved in arts programming, a significantcontribution likely to be overlooked in themidst of so many core human services.
Partners’ study found that close to 60% hostmusic programs, a statistic that did not surpriseus given the extraordinary space that oldercongregational buildings offer for bothrehearsal and performance. But we were sur-prised by the extent to which congregationsare involved in other areas of the arts, such asdance, poetry, and community theater, andhow congregations open their older buildingsnot only for performances but for classes, exhi-bitions, and lectures. In particular, we learnedhow important congregations have been asincubators for the arts. New York City’s his-toric St. Mark’s Church-in-the-Bowery, builtin 1799 on what was once the estate ofGovernor Peter Stuyvesant, for example, hashelped nurture at least two major programsthat have a national reputation:The PoetryProject and The Danspace Project.
We were particularly interested in the impe-tus behind arts programs for children.Chicago’s Berry United Methodist Church, forexample, began its Children’s Art Project tosupplement a declining arts presence in thepublic school curriculum. Likewise, atBroadway United Methodist Church inIndianapolis, a professional violin teacher, amember of the congregation, began a musicprogram for neighborhood children at therequest of several parents.
Congregations serve as centers ofculture for immigrants andmigrants alike.
Throughout their history, sacred places haveprovided a safe place where the culture, musicand language of national and ethnic groupscould be honored and preserved. CountlessCatholic and Orthodox churches, synagoguesand African American churches, for example,have provided space for schools, social clubsand other activities that brought –– and con-tinue to bring together –– people with acommon faith and heritage for mutual supportin a larger world that has often been indiffer-ent or hostile.
Congregations welcome andprovide meeting space in theirolder buildings for all kinds oflocal organizations.
Congregations are extremely community-minded. Close to 45% of the congregations inour study say their buildings are the hubs forneighborhood organizations and causes whichmeet on a regular basis.This is in addition tothe many self-help groups, such as AA, NA,OA, and Al-Anon, which are standard daily orweekly fare for congregations.
The variety of meeting spaces availablewithin a single older church or synagoguebuilding makes it possible for congregations tohouse many different kinds of organizationsalong with their own programs. Still, this kindof meeting space can be scarce. Since its parishhall burned down several years ago, St. Johnthe Evangelist Church in San Francisco hashad to turn groups away. According to its rec-tor, the church is literally “booked by thehour.”
From Danspace at New York City’s St.Mark’s Church to Allen Chapel A.M.E.’s soupkitchen, these programs demonstrate thatinner-city congregations with older buildingsare reaching out to welcome people from allwalks of life, meeting the full scope of humanneeds and strengthening their communities inthe process.
Canon F. B.Williams, rector of the Church of the Intercession inWest Harlem, New York, recalls a meeting he had with Pernessa
Seele, a community leader. It was 1989. Many members of the parishhad died from a spreading disease called AIDS. “She came to my officeand challenged me in the name of God to do more about this crisis.”For Canon Williams, that conversation was a turning point. Respondingto her challenge, lay and clergy leaders worked together to organize theHarlem Week of Prayer for the Healing of AIDS.That event led to sig-nificant new initiatives in reaching out to people with AIDS. In hostingand housing such programs, the church has done much to help thosewith the disease.
While the physical facilities provided by theChurch of the Intercession for AIDS outreachare significant, the services would not existwithout a full array of other resources thechurch brought together. For the first time,Partners’ study pinpoints the enormous sub-sidy that congregations provide when theybring together space, people, financial supportand other resources on behalf of programsserving the larger community. We can also saythat churches and synagogues receive very littlein return, except for the satisfaction of knowingthat they have lived out their mission to servepeople in need.
Providing Full Service
You might say that America’s urban congre-gations are “full-service institutions,” providingan in-depth package of connected resourcesessential to the success of their community
service programs.The Church of the Intercession is one example of thedepth and complexity of a full-service congregation.TabernaclePresbyterian Church in Indianapolis is another.With most of its congre-gation living outside the neighborhood,Tabernacle could have easilyuprooted as well, relocating to some more affluent section of the city.Instead, the church chose to stay in its finely-crafted, 1920’s-vintagebuilding.Today, it brings its considerable array of resources to bear onthe social problems of its original neighborhood.
The sprawling “Tab” complex welcomes the children who come forrecreation or tutoring, the poor who are counseled by its legal clinic,and the hungry who receive food at its soup kitchen. But those whobenefit from the church’s outreach receive much more than a space togather in.The church draws from its 1,050 members for volunteers tohelp oversee, staff and fund these programs — as well as from the com-munity at large.The church’s staff — everyone from pastors tosecretaries and custodians — also provide support to in-house programs.The church also subsidizes programs’ utility costs, and, in some cases,provides direct funding.
16
This cluster of congregational resourcesprovides enormous “added value” to the spacethat community programs share with congre-gations.Those who share space withcongregations often declare that these places arewarm, welcoming and nurturing.That warmthand welcome come from a rare combination ofarchitecture and humanity.The beauty of thebuilding spaces — complemented by the com-passion and generosity of the congregation itself— has moved users ranging from dance troupesto the homeless to testify that these environ-ments have had an enormously powerful effecton their work and their lives.
Space, people, time, money — what dothese inter-related resources add up to? Toassess the full value of sacred places, Partnersexamined and evaluated each component sepa-rately — building space; professional staffsupport; volunteer support; financial contribu-tions; and in-kind support.
Space in the Building
When it was designed in 1914, the dignifiedGothic Revival Church of the Intercessionincluded an ambitious layout of rooms withvaried functions: a gymnasium, large kitchens,classrooms, exercise space and a stage for the-atrical productions. It was designed by one ofthe nation’s leading architects –– BertramGoodhue –– and beautifully crafted fromstone, wood and stained glass.Today, thosesame spaces accommodate current neighbor-hood needs by housing child care centers,AIDS support programs, and tutoring activi-ties, among other programs.
If Intercession were to shut its doors tomor-row, the community programs it houses wouldhave a difficult time finding comparablyaffordable, well-located, well-laid out and wel-coming space. Some would be forced to cutback on their services; others would go out ofbusiness. Our study asked program managersto estimate what it would cost them to rentspace in a comparable location.Their answer:a total of about $27,000 each year for all fourprograms hosted, on average, by the studycongregations.
Staff Support
Jermaine Quick, the coordinator for educa-tion outreach at Mars Hill Baptist Church inPhiladelphia, has been the catalyst behind sev-eral programs that serve children and youth inits declining neighborhood.The tutoring pro-gram he initiated offers guidance on math,reading and science homework, plus specialsessions on conflict resolution. Now he is pur-suing plans for a computer center to teachurban kids how to catch up in a high-techworld.
Quick is one example of how a congrega-tion’s staff is integrally involved in conceiving,managing, coordinating and troubleshootingfor the community programs housed in itsproperty. Quick’s job is to provide communityoutreach. For others on the staff, involvementin community service programs is not neces-sarily included in their job description.However, everyone from the clergyperson tothe janitor tend to get caught up in a widerange of matters related to programs present inthe building.
This new level of responsibility can become— as Susan Johnson, pastor at Hyde ParkUnion Church, has observed — “a whole newburden....The sexton or janitor will have morework to do.The phone will ring all the timeand the calls will be for space-sharers in thebuilding, or about them, even if they have theirown phones.... ” Like a family, when newmembers are added to the congregational“household,” the responsibilities of those whoown and manage that house multiply!
And what then is the dollar value of thisstaff contribution? Based on the estimatedwages of clergypeople, custodians, secretariesand other staff members at the average con-gregation, Partners estimates that the stafftime a congregation contributes to supportcommunity service programs is worth almost$33,000 each year.
17
Volunteer Support
Pernessa Seele, a neighbor of the Church of the Intercession whohelped to jump-start new initiatives serving people with AIDS, is butone example among countless others who contribute time, energy, andexpertise to their congregation’s service programs. In fact, the averagecongregation, during the course of a year, provides over 5,300 hours(or 132 weeks) of volunteer support to community programs. It’s as iftwo and a half full-time volunteers were stationed at the church 52weeks a year.The dollar value of this contribution is estimated to be$62,382 annually.
Direct Funding
Although congre-gations make it clearthat other resources— buildings and peo-ple — are easier tocontribute than fund-ing, they can and do
provide modest grants or contributions from their “mission” budgets toa range of the programs they house. Hyde Park Union Church inChicago, for example, has given $1,200 for its “Open Kitchen Cooking”program in one recent year, and Berry United Methodist Church inChicago has given $1,200 to its Children’s Art Project. On average,the congregations in Partners’ study give over $17,000 annually tosupport the community programs they house.
Utilities and In-Kind Support
Lastly, congregations often cover other costs associated with carryingout activities that serve the larger community.Their furnaces provideheat and hot water for the full array of activities in their buildings, andthe energy costs associated with community programs are usually paidfor by the host congregation. A congregation’s office may also lend itsphotocopier, postage meter, telephones and other equipment to pro-grams it houses, not to mention janitorial supplies and other necessitiesfor day-to-day operations. On average, the studied congregations giveover $14,000 in this kind of support each year.
18
For a city like Philadelphia with over 700 older
churches and synagogues, the subsidy congregations
provide to make community programs possible
amounts to over $100 million annually.
Total Value of CongregationalResources
If you tally all the contributions thatcongregations make, the total subsidy theyprovide their communities is over $140,000 ayear. (The average congregation providesalmost $3,000 in value to each of four pro-grams it supports each month, for a total of$12,000 each month or $144,000 each year.)For a city like Philadelphia with over 700older churches and synagogues, this subsidyamounts to over $100 million annually.
This subsidy takes into account the fees andin-kind services that congregations receiveback from programs that share space — onaverage, only $9,400 per year. In other words,congregations give 16 times more than theyreceive.
The total contribution congregations makeis often equal to their full annual budgets. Ineffect, for every dollar received by the averagecongregation for its annual operations, it maybe giving a full dollar of value back to its com-munity.
The building administrator at K.A.M. IsaiahIsrael in Chicago has summed up this extraor-dinary story of sacrifice and generosity well:“We have a tradition of doing things for thecommunity-at-large.The temple considersitself a community center... (We) provide kids,parents, life, noise. It is good.”
19
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Volu
ntee
r Tim
e
Cler
gy a
nd O
ther
Staf
f Sup
port
Shar
ed S
pace
Cash
Sup
port
Utili
ties
In-k
ind
Supp
ort
$0
$70,000
Annual Value of Goods and Services Provided by the Average Congrgation
In 1974, St. John the Evangelist Church inSan Francisco celebrated 117 years at its pre-
sent location with only 11 remaining membersin its early 20th century building.This tinycongregation, believing their church couldhave a positive impact in the city’s strugglingMission District, created the EducationalThresholds Center. More than two decadeslater, the tutoring program continues to thrive,serving some 300 neighborhood children year-round and leveraging the support of at least 25community organizations and many volunteers.
Congregations with older and historicbuildings are deeply-rooted in their communi-ties, as the story of St. John’s attests.Thecongregations included in our study have beenat the same location on average for 80 years ormore. Only seven have ever contemplatedmoving away, and only one actually relocated(shortly after our study was completed).Theoldest congregation dates back to 1677; theyoungest, although housed in an older build-ing, was founded as recently as 1991.
The buildings themselves –– many historicand built to be visual landmarks on theirstreetscapes –– help create that sense of rooted-ness.They are powerful places, resonant withmemories of faith and family. Members of the con-gregation may move away,but these historic sacredplaces keep drawing them back to their old neigh-borhoods. In a society as mobile as ours, suchrootedness is significant, especially when it blossomsinto a commitment of time and resources to carefor communities in need.
Partners’ findings show how integral con-gregations with older buildings have becometo the delivery of programs and services intheir communities. Congregations are theprime initiators and incubators for the arrayof programs their older buildings house, andthey are catalysts for volunteers –– their ownmembers as well as people from the greatercommunity.
Other charitable organizations, of whichthere are many, share the commitment of con-gregations to do good. But congregations,rooted in the neighborhoods they serve, reach-ing out to the people in need who live rightbeside them, exemplify what we have come toknow and value as “direct-service” organiza-tions. Moreover, these congregations,
motivated to take action, move quickly, eventhough they may be short of funds or otherresources.
What Congregations Do Best
Traditionally, congregations have beenamong the most welcoming and nurturing ofhelping institutions, their older buildings bea-cons for the needy. Faced with escalatingneeds, however, they have increasingly becomeactivists –– initiating, encouraging, incubatingand housing new programs and services thatcommunities, for good reason, now depend on.Here is what we learned:
❖ Congregations are responsible for initiatingthe majority of community service programstheir older buildings house.
❖ The impetus for most of these programscomes from both leadership and member-ship. Clergy helped to initiate over 40% ofthe programs studied. Individual congrega-tion members played a role getting programsunderway in 38% of all cases. Most programsare initiated by a combination of clergy andcongregants, with additional input from laycommittees and staff.
❖ While congregations frequently partner andshare space with outside groups to provideservices, it is rare for these groups to initiatethese relationships. Our study congregationsreport that human service organizationsplayed a role in initiating only 3% of theprograms housed in sacred places.
These findings clearly tell us that, withoutcongregations’ initiative, communities wouldhave far fewer programs and services.
2120
4.Why CongregationsIn Older Sacred Places?
Incubating and Nurturing
Congregations welcome a mix of community groups into their olderbuildings. Most of these groups — neighborhood organizations, townwatch, and other local civic and improvement associations — pay littleor nothing for the use of space.The religious community has a long tra-dition of welcoming many groups, such as AA and other self-helporganizations, who have learned they can depend on the open door ofthe local church or synagogue.
Less well known isthe role congregationsplay in incubating andhousing new organi-zations — often fromtheir conception andthrough their infancy.Many of these fledg-ling groups begin bymeeting or usingspace in older con-gregational buildings
and ultimately spin off on their own. Some groups have become region-al or national models. More than 50 of the congregations in Partners’study report they have helped found close to 100 new organizations, orabout two new spin-off organizations per congregation.These organiza-tions, to name just a few, include:
❖ The Philadelphia Committee for the Homeless (by First ReformedChurch);
❖ the Wabash YMCA (by Quinn Chapel A.M.E. Church in Chicago);
❖ the Indianapolis Chamber Orchestra (by Robert Parks UnitedMethodist Church);
❖ the Hyde Park Food Pantry (by K.A.M. Isaiah Israel Temple with acoalition of other congregations in Chicago).
While some of these organizations move on to space of their own,others continue to share buildings and resources with their foundingcongregations, such as the Educational Thresholds Center of St. John’s.The long-lasting relationships established between incubated groups andtheir hosts reflect both the need for and the strength found in the nur-turing environment congregations provide.They also reflect the flexibleand affordable space congregations with older buildings have to offer.
22
The Role of Volunteers
The day-to-day survival of communityservice programs housed by congregationswith older buildings depends upon the staffand volunteers that congregations can supply.Over half of all the programs reported by ourstudy congregations rely on clergy and congre-gational staff to make up their workforce.Thisis in addition to support from volunteers,which 75% of the programs depend on.
This volunteer workforce is comprised ofcongregation members as well as people from thegreater community, although volunteeringcongregation members slightly outnumber com-munity volunteers.These findings suggest thatwhile congregations are very successful at mobi-lizing their own members, they are almost aseffective in attracting community members wholook to local churches and synagogues for mean-ingful volunteer opportunities. Congregations,therefore, are catalysts for neighborhood orcommunity involvement.
In addition, volunteer efforts tend to have asnowball effect.We found an impressive num-ber of instances where individuals who hadbenefited from particular programs returned toserve others. Many of the youth who partici-pated in the Educational Thresholds Center, forexample, have come back to the Center astutors.
Responding to Changing Needs
When we asked congregations why theycreated various programs and services, wereceived a simple answer: they saw specificneeds and they responded.This responsivenessis further evidence of congregations’ capacityto be both flexible and highly attuned to thedynamic of change around them. As we ques-tioned them further, congregationsacknowledged that the needs they respond toare often the result of broader changes in theircommunity or larger society. Indeed, the impe-tus for one third of their programming can beattributed to community change. Members ofChicago’s Hyde Park Union Church, forexample, began the Vigil Against Violence indirect response to an increase in neighborhoodcrime.
23
Congregations are the prime initiators and
incubators for the array of programs their older
buildings house, and they are catalysts for
volunteers –– their own members as well as
people from the greater community.
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0%
35%
Cler
gy
Cong
rega
tiona
lM
embe
r(s)/G
roup
s
Cong
rega
tiona
lCo
mm
ittee
Cong
rega
tiona
lSt
aff M
embe
r(s)
Othe
r Con
greg
atio
ns
Dioc
ese/
Judi
cato
ry
40%
45%
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
d Co
aliti
on
Hum
an S
ervi
ceOr
gani
zatio
n
Gove
rnm
ent A
genc
y
Initiators of Community ProgramsSupported by Congregations
25
Few congregations, however, would describetheir actions as responses to changes on theregional or national level.We specifically askedcongregations if they had developed programsand services because of government cutbacksat federal, state and local levels.They reportedthat diminishing government services account-ed for only 78 out of 449 programs.
This finding reveals something importantabout the nature of congregations and theirsocial service delivery. Grounding their actionsin their faith traditions, congregations perceivethe impetus for community service as comingfrom within. And, while the needs they seemay stem from government initiatives or othersystemic problems far removed from their ownneighborhoods, they focus their desire to servelocally, looking first to the lives and needs ofpeople in their own backyards, mobilizingresources in-hand, including older buildings.
Indeed, congregations focus so intensely onmeeting the needs of their community,that they often disregard the impact suchprogramming has on already tight budgets,overburdened staff and volunteers, or, especial-ly, building wear and tear.
Implications for the Futureof Sacred Places
When congregations like Mars Hill are cop-ing with the increasing number of peoplecoming to their feeding programs, the deterio-rating condition of their building is only asecondary concern. As the leaders of FirstCongregational Church in San Franciscoexplained what motivates them to house com-munity services:“There is a sense that thebuilding is one of our primary means of doingmission and one of our best resources. Ourown use of the building is very small by com-parison.” But as government –– national andlocal –– tacitly or explicitly relies on congrega-tions to do still more, the issue of infrastructurecannot be ignored.
Congregations are already responding tochanging community needs; they have beendoing so at great cost and sacrifice for the last30 to 40 years.With a failing physical infra-structure and a dearth of outside support —and increasing social need — it is uncertainhow much longer they can continue to do so.
Partners proposes a new public discoursethat acknowledges the role congregations andtheir older buildings play in community life. Inthe course of that dialogue, we need to take acloser look at the strengths and limitations ofcongregational resources. Building on ourstudy’s revelatory findings, we need to identifynew ways of providing support for theseinvaluable institutions, without changing thecharacter –– or diminishing the spirit –– inwhich they serve.
24
5.Marking Streets,Marking Lives
In studying congregations with older prop-erties, Partners also looked closely at thearchitecture itself.The study confirms thatAmerica’s sacred places are distinct from otherbuildings –– in form as well as function. Asarchitecture, their powerful physical presencein a community contributes significantly to thelives of those who live and work nearby.
Marking the Landscape
Rooted in a neighborhood, a church, syna-gogue or meetinghouse touches the lives andhearts of many thousands of people. Some mayhave been married there, or have had theirchildren baptized or bar mitzvahed there.Some may have gone there for scout troopmeetings or child care, or for recitals and con-certs. And some may simply have walked ordriven by the building countless times andcome to love the dignity and beauty it bringsto its neighborhood.
Even the most worn sacred places inspireawe, especially in the inner city. Sacred placessymbolize perseverance amidst rapid change,permanence amidst decline, dignity amidst dev-astation.They bear witness to the faith,sacrifice, and significant achievements of gener-ations past. Built over decades and centuries,these places express a community’s deepestyearnings and aspirations.Today these buildingsmaintain their power, transcending barriers ofculture and belief to bring beauty and whole-ness where it is needed most.
As community catalysts, religious properties–– and the congregations who own them ––may “bring change to neighborhoods,” as Rev.Isaac Smith of Mars Hill Baptist Church inPhiladelphia notes. But sacred places also pow-erfully affirm that both individuals andcommunities can survive change.
27
In 1923, the Irish priest of St. Ita’s Church in Chicago was contem-plating the design of a new parish building to serve his burgeoning
congregation. He approached his bishop for guidance.The bishop, whowas of German background, suggested the French Gothic style.Withits high, pointed tower and elaborately carved limestone details, thebuilding, completed in 1927, became one of the city’s great landmarks,and remains an outstanding example of Medieval-revival architecture.But, like the Gothic cathedrals it emulated, St. Ita’s appearance contin-ued to evolve.
When Cuban immigrants began to worship there, a sculpted tableaudepicting a miraculous event in the history of the Cuban church wasadded to the sanctuary. Still later, when Mexican-Americans joined theparish in larger numbers, a place was made for an image of the Virgin ofGuadeloupe. Now the church named after a sixth-century Irish abbess is arichly-layered expression of no less than four cultures reaching across sev-eral generations of migration and settlement.
St. Ita’s is not alone. All across America, countless religious buildingstell –– through their physical form and ornament –– an important storyabout the cultural life, ethnic origins and nationalities of the peoples
who have settledhere.Taken as awhole, a community’schurches, temples,synagogues andmeeting houses, oftenfound within blocksof each other in a
single neighborhood, express the living legacy of religious tolerance thatfirst brought settlers to the New World more than three centuries ago.Indeed, these historic religious properties are the most important physi-cal evidence of the ethnic, racial and religious pluralism that defines ournational character.They are embodiments of America’s unique history.
26
Sacred places symbolize perseverance amidst
rapid change, permanence amidst decline, dignity
amidst devastation.
Partners’ study affirms that, just by theirphysical presence, churches and synagoguesmake a number of significant contributions tothe quality of life in our neighborhoods andcommunities:
Sacred places are often highly-visibleanchors of community that giveidentity and dignity to city centersand far-flung neighborhoods.
A church or synagogue’s sheer size, heightand prominent location make it a landmark bywhich we mark the daily rhythm of our lives.Many Catholic parishes occupy a cluster ofbuildings that form a kind of “village within thecity,” where both parishioners and communitymembers come together to serve and be served.And while these monumental structures may“elevate” residential neighborhoods, in thedowntowns of our larger cities, amidst multi-story office towers, religious buildings oftenreinforce the more human scale of thestreetscape; and their courtyards and graveyardsprovide valuable open space and greenery.
Sacred places are often the mostimportant local repositories ofpublicly-accessible fine art andcraftsmanship.
Furnishings and ornaments –– rows ofstained glass windows, ranks of carved pews,high towers or domes, mosaics and masonry ––dramatically embellish spaces designed forworship.Taken as a whole, they make for abreathtaking experience. In any given commu-nity, the local churches and synagogues containartistic treasures that rival the collections oflocal galleries and museums.
In Chicago, for example, Second PresbyterianChurch, a congregation included in Partners’study, is a virtual museum of Tiffany stained glass.Another, Sacred Heart Church in Camden, NewJersey, displays a stunning interior including a fullset of ceiling murals and imported stained glasswindows.
Sacred places represent the finestwork of America’s architects.
From the earliest days of America’s foundingto the present, the nation’s finest designers haveapplied their skills to the creation of sacredplaces. Grace Episcopal Church in New YorkCity, for example, is one of architect JamesRenwick’s masterworks. He was among thefirst to bring the Gothic Revival style toAmerica from Europe in the 19th century.Similarly, Kehilath Anshe Ma’arivCongregation in Chicago commissionedDankmar Adler and Louis Sullivan, the latterperhaps best known as the father of theAmerican skyscraper, to design its synagoguein the 1890s.This building is now the proudhome of Pilgrim Baptist Church.
Sacred places are places of refugeand meditation that feed the soul.
Although it can be said that sacred placesfulfill their purpose best when filled withactivity, they also have great power and beautyin quieter, more solitary moments. Many con-gregations keep the doors of their worshipspaces open during the week. A lone visitorcan sit in the darkened sanctuary, amidst glow-ing windows and shining woodwork. Perhapsthe organist is practicing or children can beheard playing down a hallway. No matter whatone’s belief, one can claim in this tranquil spacea much-needed respite from the world’s clamor–– a moment of peace.
Such is the power of sacred places to markour lives.
28
29
6.Older Sacred PlacesAt Risk
From Band-Aids to BenignNeglect
Sacred places were built to last. Any experi-enced architect can testify to the fact thatchurch roof beams tend to be cut more broadlyand walls built more thickly than necessary.Like a road or bridge or any other piece ofinfrastructure, however, sacred places will even-tually sag and crumble if repairs are postponedyear after year. Religious properties are alsofragile places, vulnerable to the wear of timeand weather.
However, most church and synagogue leadersare not equipped or prepared for effective, profes-sional-level property management, despite theimportance of sacred places in the life, missionand finances of congregations. Clergy do not, asa rule, receive seminary training in propertyadministration.They tend to learn on the jobwith little if any guidance or assistance.Custodians, too, receive little or no guidance oreducation in property care, and are oftenstretched thin simply keeping up with routinecleaning and small fix-it tasks.Volunteer lay prop-erty committees usually have more enthusiasmthan expertise, and the frequent rotation of com-
mittee members can undermine the consistencyessential to managing and maintaining an agingproperty.
Despite their inexperience, congregationscannot help but be aware of the most glaringrepair problems they face. Over a thirdacknowledge that their buildings have seriousroof and gutter repair needs, which can lead tochronic water penetration, the most seriousand pervasive repair problem faced by anybuilding. One in five congregations also facestructural problems –– such as cracks in walls,or separating roof beams –– that can threatenthe stability of a building and pose seriousthreats to the safety of people within.
31
You could call it a “tale of one city/two congregations.”Arch StreetMeeting, in Center City Philadelphia, is a recognized historic
property that serves both as a Quaker meetinghouse and a conferencecenter open to all. Several miles north and west, Christ TempleInterdenominational Church serves a much needier community, withmuch more limited resources.
When Arch Street Meeting’s leadership learned that important rooftimbers in the meetinghouse were failing — endangering the entirebuilding –– they managed to draw on Quaker philanthropic sources to
raise the more thanone million dollarsrequired for repairs.But when ChristTemple’s small congre-gation faced over$300,000 in majorrepairs –– a figure sev-eral times the annualbudget for buildingupkeep, they wereforced to abandon
their main building. Currently concentrating all worship services andcommunity outreach in an adjoining building, the congregation nowcontemplates having to demolish the main building, which would elimi-nate forever its enormous potential as a community resource.
The fact is that urban congregations like Arch Street Meeting andChrist Temple Church typically face enormous repair needs that areincreasingly overwhelming their ability to keep up. Community andpreservation leaders are seeing a growing pattern of property “dismem-berment,” where portions of religious buildings are demolished orvacated when funds are unavailable for repair.The implications for theservice programs that congregations host are profound.
Partners’ research demonstrates that, after decades of deferred main-tenance and postponed repairs, many of America’s sacred places arefacing serious repair needs and urgent renovations that put both build-ings and community programs at great risk.
30
After decades of deferred maintenance and
postponed repairs, many of America’s older sacred
places are facing serious repair needs and urgent
renovations that put both buildings and programs
at great risk.
Churches are sacred way
stations, places of refuge in the
storms of life. Now, these
historic places themselves need
lifesaving.
Rev. Christopher M. Hamlin
33
If funds for repair are difficult to raise, congre-gations often decide to “live with” their buildingproblems, particularly if they don’t appear to poseany immediate risk. In general, congregationstend to underestimate the problems they face,which makes it difficult to monitor, recognizeand treat repair needs as they appear and grow.
Partner’s study shows that many congrega-tions are unaware of hidden crises that havenot yet shown major symptoms –– such aspoor heating systems, obsolete electrical sys-tems, and life safety improvements.
The Costs of SustainingSacred Places
Congregations are already struggling to payfor routine property upkeep and heating costs.Partners’ study found that they spend, on aver-age, almost a third of their annual income onproperty care, while no fewer than a quarter ofthe studied congregations spend 40% or moreof their income on property care.
Repair costs strain already limited budgetseven further. Partners’ study asked congrega-tions to total the cost of all repairs andrenovations over and above routine mainte-nance and utility expenses they have made inthe last five years. Our finding: the averagecongregation has had to spend over $285,000over that period, an average of $57,000 eachyear. No wonder that many congregationslurch from one repair crisis to another, stretch-ing to raise funds for one but no betterprepared for the next. No wonder that preciousfew resources are left over for other prioritiesin congregational and community life.
Partners’ study also assessed the imminentrepairs and renovations that congregations arefacing in order to bring their buildings up to areasonable level of good repair over the next fiveyears. Major challenges range from the replace-ment of roofs (costing $250,000) at St. Patrick’sChurch in Indianapolis and the stabilization of atower (costing $50,000) at Third Spanish BaptistChurch in the Bronx, to pointing of masonry atPrince of Peace Catholic Church in Mobile(with a price tag of $100,000).
Anticipated repair needs will cost over$225,000 for the average congregation –– andcongregations in earthquake-prone areas willhave to spend much more. Such extraordinarylevels of repair need will strain the budgets of allbut the most affluent churches and synagoguesin future years.The burden of these repairs willhave a significant impact on the communityservices these congregations provide.
Meanwhile, congregations continue theirbalancing acts, supporting community outreachwhile also maintaining the property infrastruc-ture that houses it. Some, like Christ TempleChurch, may not succeed. Others, with theresources of an Arch Street Meeting, still havehope.
Perhaps most typical is a third example inour “tale of one city”: North Philadelphia’sMars Hill Baptist Church, which has beenforced to “mothball” two floors of its mammothchurch house. Broken plaster, swaths of peelingpaint, and antiquated plumbing and electricalsystems make the former classrooms in thechurch house useless; neglected, the deteriora-tion just gets worse. However, the churchleaders refuse to give up.Working closely withnon-profit helping groups, they have managedto keep the building’s exterior in good repairand are now pursuing plans to reclaim thechurch house space for a computer trainingcenter for neighborhood youth.These plansdepend on successfully attracting new support-ers beyond the church’s own membership.
Like thousands of other congregationsacross the nation, Mars Hill Church embodiesan ironic disparity — between how muchcommunities depend on their sacred places andhow little community leaders contribute tokeeping these invaluable places in good repair.
32
7.Where Do We GoFrom Here?
Fred Blocher, Kansas City Star
The findings presented in this book will, wehope, fuel many new discussions about the
role of faith-based institutions in the life ofAmerica’s communities. Indeed, Partners forSacred Places urges key sectors of Americansociety –– government, philanthropy, businessand religion –– to come together and discusstheir shared stake in the future of sacred placesthat make possible so many programs of benefitto the greater community.
This new conversation must not overlookthe urgent capital needs of older sacred places.In responding to Partners’ findings, funders andother new partners no doubt will be moved to support the many wor-thy programs and services that congregations offer. Although this kind ofsupport is extremely important, funders must also consider what it willtake for congregations to sustain these services.The long-term care oftheir buildings is crucial to program survival.These buildings’ current,almost universal, state of disrepair puts many programs and, in turn,communities at risk.
34
❖ Disseminating “best practices” derived fromthe handful of highly-successful, local pro-grams that provide technical and oftenfinancial assistance to help congregationswith the care and stewardship of their olderproperties.These programs attract significantsupport from foundations, individuals, andcorporations.
❖ Encouraging more state-funded grant pro-grams — created by bond acts or legislativeappropriations — that support capital workon historic religious properties and providepublic dollars directly to religious institu-tions.
Some of the proposals we can consider tosupport the care and active use of older sacredplaces include:
❖ New funding vehicles to encourage govern-ment and philanthropic support. A “NationalFund for Sacred Places” and a “Percent forCapital” program are two possibilities.TheFund would provide seed grants for repairsand renovations to older buildings serving apublic purpose.The “Percent for Capital”program would set aside a portion of everydollar donated for community service towardrepairing physical infrastructure.
❖ Legislation that would make possible govern-ment support for capital repairs to sacredplaces that serve the public.
❖ An affinity group for grantmakers to drawtogether foundation, corporate and businessleaders that have an interest in broadeningsupport for faith-based institutions and thesacred places they depend on for communityprogramming.
❖ A national coalition of key stakeholders andadvocates –– representing religion, humanservices, the arts, community developmentand historic preservation –– charged withdeveloping and implementing a long-termstrategy to sustain America’s sacred places.
❖ Increased technical assistance and grants tolocal organizations that can help congrega-tions with the care and use of their older
35
To bring about change in the way sacred places are cared for and sup-ported, we need to overcome certain obstacles that prevent or discouragekey sectors from getting involved, including:
❖ constraints that limit government support for sacred places;
❖ real or perceived limitations on the ability of private foundations andcorporations to support 1) the public or community service role ofcongregations and 2) their accompanying capital repair needs;
❖ inexperience of congregations in approaching potential outside sup-porters and in meeting expectations for financial and administrativeaccountability.
We can provide new information that will enrich and shape the evolv-ing conversation among these sectors by:
❖ Helping congregations more effectively tell their stories of sacredplaces in community service and social impact.
❖ Promoting models where congregations and other community-basedproviders work successfully in partnership to attract broader supportfrom government, business and the philanthropic community.
buildings. Such pioneering programs inPhiladelphia, New York, and New Mexico havebeen in place now for more than a decade.
A Call to Action
Sacred Places at Risk –– its findings and rec-ommendations –– constitutes a bold, new callto action. Partners is committed to a campaignwhich demonstrates that older sacred places area major public asset and part of the nation’sinfrastructure that cannot be sustained withoutbroader recognition and support. Partners canhelp facilitate deliberation and discussion thatwill lead to changes in the way sacred placesare cared for and supported, but we cannot doit alone. Here are ways for you to get involved:
If you are a religious leader or congrega-tion member in need of help, reach outto local organizations involved in historicpreservation or community development,as well as civic leaders and electedofficials.
If you are part of a local preservation orcommunity development organization,bring people together to discuss the cre-ation of a new sacred places assistanceprogram.
If you are a civic leader, partner withcongregations to meet neighborhoodneeds, and bring your communitytogether with others that are trying tofind solutions.
If you are a funder, revisit your grant-making policies and guidelines to makeroom for supporting sacred places serv-ing a public purpose.
If you are a government leader, conveneyour constituents to explore new optionsbefore sacred places are lost.
Partners is asking leaders in religion, gov-ernment, business, philanthropy, humanservices, the arts, historic preservation andcommunity development to respond to this callto action.We invite you to join us to helpsafeguard the sacred places that serve us all.
37
PostscriptThe findings documented in Sacred Places at Risk were first released at a
press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on October30, 1997. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn) and Dr.William J. Bennett(former U.S. Secretary of Education) shared the podium and joined Partnersin calling for a broad campaign to help sustain the public contributions ofsacred places.
On December 2, 1997,The Brookings Institution hosted a forummoderated by E. J. Dionne, Jr., Brookings Senior Fellow inGovernmental Studies and Columnist for The Washington Post, entitled,“Sacred Places, Civic Needs: Church, State and Social Policy,” whichexplored the role of government in supporting religious institutions.
By early December, over 500 copies of the report had been distrib-uted and its findings reported in national and local media, from The NewYork Times and The Chronicle of Philanthropy to the Mobile Register andThe Chicago Tribune.
One article in ThePhiladelphia Inquirerfocused on Mars HillBaptist Church inNorth Philadelphia,one of the case studiesprofiled in this book.Within days the publichad responded to thecongregation’s needswith three offers: thedonation of computersfor the congregation’syouth program, a newheating system for thechurch hall, and a cash
contribution of $10,000.The pastor declares,“we told our story andwe’ve been blessed. As other congregations tell their story, they too willhave blessings.”
Many congregations and local organizations have called to requestcopies of the study findings and Partners has heard that the findings arebeing widely discussed and preached from the pulpit.
36
What would many neighborhoods be like if
there were only rubble-strewn empty lots or
another batch of fluorescent-lighted fried chicken
outlets where these weathered Romanesque and
Gothic Revival structures now stand?
The New York Times
The Rev. Christopher Hamlin, pastor of the historic Sixteenth StreetBaptist Church in Birmingham,Alabama, was inspired to undertake aself-assessment of his congregation’s own community outreach and ser-vice. Here is what he found over the course of a single week:
“We welcomed more than 600 visitors to our visitor and touristministry that describes the role of Sixteenth Street in the Civil Rightsmovement. Our twenty five volunteers were available to assist visitorswho toured the Civil Rights District and the church.We hosted theMorehouse College Glee Club in concert one evening and the choirsfrom Alabama A & M and Alabama State Universities the next day atnoon.We distributed funds through our Benevolent Fund and receivednon-perishable food items for Greater Birmingham Ministries. In oneof our conference rooms, we welcomed six international visitors fromEuropean nations and engaged in a roundtable discussion about racerelations that included the pastors of two other Birmingham churches.By week’s end, we invested 45 hours of community service and donatedapproximately $1,500 in space and other resources.”
Not every congregation offers programs and services as broad inscope or as large in numbers. But, what they do offer is as valuable totheir own neighborhoods –– and it can be documented and made apart of the story they share with potential new supporters and partnersin their own backyards.
Pastor Hamlin speaks for congregations nationwide when he says:“Churches are sacred way stations, places of refuge in the storms of life.Now, these historic places themselves need lifesaving.”
38
This book is based on an in-depth studycommissioned by Partners for Sacred
Places of over 100 congregations with olderand historic religious properties (constructedprior to 1940) in the following six cities: NewYork, Philadelphia, Chicago, Indianapolis,Mobile, and the Bay Area (Oakland and SanFrancisco).
The sampling of over 100 congregationswas randomly selected to be representative ofdifferent faiths. Consequently, it includesCatholic, mainline Protestant, historicallyBlack, Jewish and evangelical traditions. Onlyfour synagogues are represented, reflecting thesignificant post World War II out-migrationfrom many inner cities of the Jewish commu-nity.
Each congregation participated in a series ofin-depth interviews. First, participants wereasked to identify the full range of communityservice programs housed in their older build-ings.Then, the interview focused on one tofive of the congregations’ major communityservice programs.
The study had three research components,as follows:
The first component of the study exploredhow congregations use their buildings to houseservices and programs that benefit the greatercommunity. Dr. Ram A. Cnaan, the principalinvestigator for this component, is AssociateProfessor in the School of Social Work at theUniversity of Pennsylvania. He is widely-pub-lished and considered a national authority inthe social work field on services provided bynon-profit, voluntary organizations. He is anational leader in the Association for Researchin Nonprofit and Voluntary Action (ARNO-VA), and serves as Deputy Editor of Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Quarterly.
Dr. Cnaan’s research director was GaynorYancey, M.S.W., who is a doctoral candidate insocial work at the University of Pennsylvania.Ms.Yancey is an Assistant Professor at EasternCollege in St. David’s, PA. Previously, she wasExecutive Director of the Greater PhiladelphiaFood Bank and former social ministry coordi-nator for congregations within the GreaterPhiladelphia Baptist Association.
Dr. Robert Wineburg served as project con-sultant to Dr. Cnaan and Ms.Yancey. Dr.Wineburg is Associate Professor of Social Workat the University of North Carolina,Greensboro, and has conducted extensiveresearch into the role of congregations in sup-porting the work of social service agencies.
The second study component exploredproperty conditions and repair needs of 28congregations drawn from the larger sampling.This component was carried out by KenJacobs, architect and project manager for theVitetta Group, a nationally-known architecturaland planning firm based in Philadelphia. Mr.Jacobs is also project manager for the rehabili-tation of Independence Hall, sponsored by theNational Park Service.
The third study component explored thecultural and architectural significance of 22congregations selected from the larger sample.Mark Brack, Professor of Architectural Historyat Drexel University, was the lead architecturalhistorian. He was assisted by Dr. Bruno Gibertiand Nancy Fee.
39
Study Methodology And ConsultantTeam Sacred Places, Public Places:
Prince of Peace Catholic Church, Mobile
If you hear the click of a pool cue and theexcited shouts of several children when youenter Prince of Peace parish hall — don’t betoo surprised. As part of an after-school pro-gram, this inner-city Mobile church isproviding a safe haven for neighborhood chil-dren in its newly renovated parish hall. Indeed,Prince of Peace has long been involved incommunity affairs.
Programs now offered on church propertyor by members include: counseling for cou-ples; meals, visitation, and transportation forsenior citizens; a day care and nursery school;health screening; visitation for the homebound;blood drives; nutrition programs; various artsevents including tours, classes, exhibits, andconcerts; and a neighborhood crime-watch.
At Prince of Peace, community outreachand building stewardship go hand-in-hand.With a freshly painted interior, new stainedglass windows, restored marble altar, plasterrepairs, a spruced up parish hall, and an histori-cal marker outside, this 1874 Gothic Revivalchurch has become even more of a beacon inthe neighborhood. As former Pastor PaulOberg realized, there is “a lot of family histo-ry” at Prince of Peace. In 1970 the parishes ofSt.Vincent de Paul, a predominantly whitecongregation, and St. Peter Claver, a predomi-nantly black congregation, merged. Since then,the congregation has become predominantlyAfrican American.
The church’s recent restoration became ameans of renewing old ties — as the congrega-tion forms new ones. “We get letters [fromformer parishioners] from around the country”states Oberg. More tourists and passersby stopin after seeing the historical marker; old mem-bers who had moved to other parts of the cityreturn for visits — and some have made gen-erous, and unsolicited, donations for furtherimprovements — including a ramp for handi-capped accessibility.
Most important, the building’s physicalimprovements allow Prince of Peace to run itsoutreach programs more successfully.“The reno-vation led directly to our providing newprograms for community residents” states Oberg,who helped create the new after-school programas well as many of the others. At Prince ofPeace, sound building stewardship has allowedthe congregation to care for the past in serviceto the future.
Congregations Serving Families:Hyde Park Union Church, Chicago
As night falls on Chicago’s South Side acrowd quietly gathers in a deserted lot.Illuminated by flickering candlelight, thissomber yet defiant group begins to recite thenames of the city’s most recent victims of vio-lence, while in the background waves aneight-foot long banner stitched with the namesof the fallen.The community members col-lected for this Vigil Against Violence performthis remembrance both to honor the dead —“52% of whom are children” says the Rev.Susan Johnson — and to show resistanceagainst this senseless destruction.
Started five years ago by members of HydePark Union Church, this anti-violence grass-roots initiative has both brought the churchinto the wider community and the communityinto the church. Although the monthly candle-light remembrance is not held on churchproperty or attended exclusively by churchmembers, Hyde Park’s support for this programhas had a catalytic effect. The State Attorney’sOffice decided to house its Support Group forVictims of Violence in the church’s buildings.Likewise, the church also now displays thebanners with the victims’ names in its sanctu-ary where the family members are free to visit— and to receive comfort from the supportgroup.
Case Examples
This use of church space in support of thecommunity is typical of Hyde Park.The 1906Romanesque Revival church was supplement-ed by a separate education building in 1929. AsJohnson explains:“It’s part of our mission tooffer programs that stabilize family welfare.Wedon’t have much money, but we can share ourbuilding.” She elaborates:“There are parts ofthe building that we might not use — butmany programs in our community would nothappen if we, and other churches, did not shareour space.”
And the church does indeed share its spacewith numerous groups, including: a ParentSupport Network, various Twelve-Step groups,a local Habitat for Humanity chapter,Tai-Chiand Yoga instruction, a youth orchestra, theHyde Park Korean United Methodist Church,the University of Chicago’s Black Oral HistoryProject, and McCormick TheologicalSeminary’s African American LeadershipProject, among many others. Hyde ParkUnion Church offers its own programs as well.One of the programs that Johnson is mostproud of is its 89-year-old day-care center thatnow serves 50 neighborhood (non-congrega-tion) children. “It’s a big commitment of space,but an important extension of the church intothe community.”
Johnson sees her church and others like it assome of the “most durable institutions in theneighborhood –– more so than many business-es or [even] public schools.” She will add onecaveat to this assumption however:“If we keepour buildings in repair, they’re our greatestasset in community development.” In the pastseveral years the church, typical of many con-gregations with older religious properties, hasput hundreds of thousands of dollars intorepair and restoration of its buildings.
Full Service Institution:Tabernacle Presbyterian Church, Indianapolis
The Rev. Peter Larson tells one of hisfavorite stories about Tabernacle’s outreachefforts.Through its free legal clinic,Tabernacle,a predominantly white congregation, took aKorean-American law student as a volunteer,and he in turn helped an African Americanstorefront church keep its space in alandlord/tenant dispute.This church may wellhave been evicted if not for Tabernacle’s pro-gram.
For Larson, this is a model of how thechurch effects positive change in a collabora-tive, interfaith manner.The legal clinic has had24 lawyers offer pro-bono services to well over100 clients in the past two years. Additionally,Tabernacle started a medical clinic that hassince incorporated as a separate non-profitgroup.The clinic, open six days a week, isstaffed with both volunteer church membersand paid personnel.
The medical and legal clinics are only partof a large array of successful services that areoffered by this congregation. For example, over2,300 kids a year are served by the congrega-tion’s recreational and tutoring programs.Tabernacle uses its own extensive athletic facil-ities — fields, baseball diamonds, and gym —to run many of these programs. But thoughthis Gothic Revival church, constructed from1921 to 1928, had many excellent facilities,more were needed.
“Lack of space has hindered our programs”explains Larson. And so the church bought anoffice complex (now the Allison ChristianCommunity Center) across the street thathouses a number of the community outreachefforts, including the medical and legal clinics.“The cost of providing services is absorbed bythe church” states Larson.We have an endow-ment, but we also rely on our congregation of1,050 to provide most of the support.”
40 41
Though Tabernacle generally has enoughmoney to have “dedicated space” for outreachand religious ministries, it also has the “goal toinvite the community into the building.”Andso the church has literally opened its doors toits neighbors. “Tab always has run a soupkitchen, but it was a take-out style; the doorsof the church were locked and chained.We’veunlocked the doors and invited people in forfood and fellowship.We do not see them as‘clients’, but as friends, brothers and sisters.”
The church has been lucky to have moreresources than many — and so the communitybenefits. “We [at Tabernacle] want to knowhow to give what we have.We do not see thechurch as a fortress, but want to find creativeuses for a beautiful older building... it belongsto the people in the neighborhood.The con-gregation is the custodian of the buildings, notthe ‘owner’.”
Responding to Community Needs:Church of the Intercession, NewYork
As both the quantity and quality ofHarlem’s affordable housing had decreased sig-nificantly in recent years, the Church of theIntercession decided to intervene in this“urban disaster.” For Canon FrederickWilliams, that decision was a “matter of insti-tutional survival, faithfulness to our vocation,and wholeness and health for our people.”Aspart of that response, Intercession helped formone of the most successful church-based, ecu-menical housing development groups in thecountry. Since its inception, Harlem Churchesfor Community Improvement, Inc. (HCCI)has developed over 2000 units of low andmoderate income housing in a variety ofneighborhoods.
In fighting one type of “urban disaster”Intercession also became involved in one ofinternational scope: the AIDS epidemic.Intercession’s AIDS ministry in fact is inextri-cably linked with its other community serviceprograms: the church has developed over 40units of housing in cooperation with HCCIand the Black Leadership Council on AIDSand the church cooperates with the renownedprogram, God’s Love We Deliver. As Williamsexplains, when a local AIDS activist “chal-lenged [area churches] in the name of God todo more about the crisis, we said yes!”
Williams considers the “multi-cultural min-istry that reaches out and honors the diversityof this community” one of Intercession’s mostimportant functions.That community includes“American-born blacks,West Indians,Dominican and other Spanish cultures, Indiansfrom the south of the sub-continent and theEgho from Nigeria.”
Intercession can accommodate such diversi-ty, thanks, in part, to “the genius and vision ofthe architect and the builder,” says Williams.The spaciousness, sturdiness, and versatility ofthe 1914 edifice enables Intercession to dedi-cate the majority of its space, classrooms,stages, basement, and gymnasium, to muchneeded community service. And every inch ofthe church’s historic building is used.Intercession hosts art exhibits, day care andafter-school programs, child and teen mentor-ing programs; senior citizen social programs,and Girl Scout troops.The renowned BoysChoir of Harlem also calls Intercession home,as does the Children’s Museum of the NativeAmerican –– the only institution of its type inthe city.
Of course, such a large and aging structure“has many [repair] needs that cost a lot” saysWilliams. Intercession is currently fixing aleaking roof to “the tune of $500,000.”Tenyears ago the church completed a “Fund forthe Future” campaign, a proactive maintenanceprogram initiated in order to “avoid futureemergencies which are endemic in an agingfacility.”
Raising capital funds has become one of thechurch’s highest priorities, second only to rais-ing operating money for its ministries andcommunity programs. ”This is not a wealthycongregation,”Williams states,“It never hasbeen.” But support for Intercession has rangedfar beyond the congregation. Local communitygroups, foundations, the Sacred Sites Programof the New York Landmarks Conservancy,elected officials, and individual donors all have“responded to our calls.” Says Williams:“peoplelove this place and are learning to give.”
The Challenge of Property Care:Mars Hill Baptist Church, Philadelphia
Jermaine Quick, the Education Coordinatorat Mars Hill, knows that “computers often arenot accessible to urban kids.” He plans to rem-edy this deficiency. If renovated, the secondfloor of the church’s fellowship hall, now indisrepair and unused, would make an idealcomputer center. Quick sees beyond the peel-ing paint and cracking plaster to a place thatwould welcome and stimulate the children ofthe community, a place where they couldlearn, explore, and, in Quick’s words,“havesomething to look forward to.”
Nurturing, challenging education programsare nothing new at Mars Hill.The church’safter-school and summer programs alreadyserve more than 100 youth, both from thelocal neighborhood and the congregation.Quick initiated a daily tutoring program thatincludes, along with guidance in math, reading,and science homework, a half-hour session onconflict resolution. He has drawn on his expe-rience working in the Philadelphia schoolsystem to develop a curriculum that helps“teach kids to focus on the positive attributesof another person, and to learn from their neg-ative feelings,” thereby building self-controland self-confidence.
Reverend Isaac Smith, the pastor of MarsHill, bought this large 1891 Gothic-stylebuilding from the Episcopal Church in theearly 1970s because his congregation needed alarger space. Since that move, Smith has seenthe precipitous decline of the church’s NorthPhiladelphia neighborhood, through the loss ofpopulation and jobs experienced in manyAmerican cities. It is this rent social fabric thatMars Hill is in the process of repairing; Smithclaims his “main purpose” is to change the areafor the better. In addition to the youth educa-tion programs, Mars Hill also offers anextensive feeding program, which provides hotmeals to 300-400 people a week.
As he has worked to serve the community,Smith has sought to shore-up the structure’smany physical problems and simultaneously usethe expansive space to house the church’s out-reach programs. Smith has followed aremodel-as-you-go philosophy, fixing problemsas money is raised from the congregation andoutside sources.
Through the years, Smith has been able toturn to the Historic Religious PropertiesProgram run by the Preservation Alliance forGreater Philadelphia as a source of advice,inspiration, and funds.This program, foundedin 1986, provides on-site surveys by an archi-tect, professional references, and small grantsfor restoration and repairs. Mars Hill hasreceived three grants from the program, andhas used the money to make both interior andexterior repairs to the building. Despite thechallenges in managing this property, Smith hasno plans to leave. He intends to use his build-ing to help further his mission of “bringingchange to North Philadelphia.”
Innovative Outreach:St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church,San Francisco
When the Rev. David Norgard wanted toopen St. John’s to the “many people who walkby but may never stop in” he came upon anovel idea, even for this Mission Districtchurch with an exemplary record of creatinginnovative community programs. St. John theEvangelist is now home to the Divine RhythmSociety, which is not — as one might think —a typical church-housed choral/classical musicgroup. “Some would call it a rave,” Norgardexplains. “It’s an all night dance party, heldevery other Friday, and attended by hundredsof people.”
And the diversity of the attendees mirrorsthe heterogeneity of urban San Francisco.Thecrowd, aged from their mid-twenties to late-fifties, is a group of all income levels, gay andstraight, and multi-racial.While opening thechurch to this crowd contains “an explicit spir-itual intent,” it has had practical results as well.Though, for the most part, this event is not amoney making venture, several people firstintroduced to St. John’s through the RhythmSociety gave pledges, many in excess of$1,000, to the church’s most recent capital
42 43
campaign. However, Norgard claims that theevent could take place more easily “if we hadmoney to take care of the building’s poorlighting and electrical systems.”
Indeed, despite looking structurally sound,the stately Gothic Revival structure, rebuilt in1909 after the earthquake of 1906, needs quitea bit of work. So, Norgard has a multi-pointplan of attack: a new roof, new shingles on theexterior, window casements, electrical systems,fire alarms, security systems, and garden repairs(a popular meeting space) are all planned.Renovations of the church are vitally neces-sary. Six days a week it hosts a variety ofcommunity events, including the EducationalThresholds Center, which offers programs forover 300 neighborhood youth.The offeringsinclude academic tutoring,“Kid Smarts” classesin urban self-defense, and summer school pro-grams in areas such as urban design.
When the kids in the urban design programrealized that the northern Mission District didnot have a single park, they decided to createone.The neighborhood participants in theclasses are actually helping reclaim a vacant lotand turn it into a pocket park — with thecity’s help and blessing. Of course, the neigh-borhood’s adults help plan and protect theirdistrict too; St. John’s also hosts the JulianStreet Neighborhood Association and theNeighborhood Watch.
Despite its success with such programs, lackof space has forced the church to turn awaydeserving groups. “Because of our space limi-tations we can’t host as many neighborhoodgroups as we’d like” sighs Norgard.To makematters worse, St. John’s parish hall burntdown several years ago and the church does“not have enough money to build a new one.”Norgard continues:“we used to host quite afew AA meetings but have stopped doing sobecause we did not have enough room for ourtutoring programs.We also want to offer thegroup Intersection for the Arts exhibition andpractice space, but we’re booked by the hour,and haven’t been able to offer them the neces-sary time and space.”
4544
List of Participating Congregations Addison Street Baptist Church,CHICAGO
All Saints Episcopal Church,MOBILE
All Saints Episcopal Church,SAN FRANCISCO
Allen Chapel A.M.E. Church,INDIANAPOLIS
Arch Street Friends Meeting House,PHILADELPHIA
Ashland Place United Methodist Church,MOBILE
Beech Grove United Methodist Church,INDIANAPOLIS
Berry Memorial United Methodist Church,CHICAGO
Bethlehem Lutheran Church,OAKLAND
Broadway United Methodist Church,INDIANAPOLIS
Calvary Episcopal Church, Germantown,PHILADELPHIA
Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul,INDIANAPOLIS
Catholic Church of St. Philip Neri,INDIANAPOLIS
Central Christian Church,INDIANAPOLIS
Christ Temple Interdenominational Church,PHILADELPHIA
Church of the Advent of Christ the King,EpiscopalSAN FRANCISCO
Church of the Ascension, EpiscopalNEW YORK
Church of the Intercession, EpiscopalNEW YORK
Congregation Beth Elohim,BROOKLYN
East 10th Street United Methodist Church,INDIANAPOLIS
Emanuel A.M.E. Church,MOBILE
Etz Chaim Sephardic Congregation,INDIANAPOLIS
First Baptist Church,Theodore,THEODORE,ALABAMA
First Chinese Baptist Church,SAN FRANCISCO
First Congregational Church,SAN FRANCISCO
First Corinthian Baptist Church,PHILADELPHIA
First Presbyterian Church,CHICAGO
First Samoan Congregational ChristianChurch,OAKLAND
First Spanish Baptist Church,PHILADELPHIA
First Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church,OAKLAND
Fourth Universalist Society,NEW YORK
Golden Gate Lutheran Church,SAN FRANCISCO
Goodwill Baptist Church,PHILADELPHIA
Government Street Presbyterian Church,MOBILE
Grace Episcopal Church,NEW YORK
Greater Canaan Church of God in Christ,PHILADELPHIA
Greater Straightway Baptist Church,PHILADELPHIA
Greek Orthodox Church of theAnnunciation,NEW YORK
Holy Rosary Catholic Church,INDIANAPOLIS
Holy Trinity Lutheran Church,CHICAGO
Hyde Park Union Church,CHICAGO
Irvington Presbyterian Church,INDIANAPOLIS
Joy of All Who Sorrow Church,INDIANAPOLIS
K.A.M. Isaiah Israel Temple,CHICAGO
Live Oak Missionary Baptist Church,MOBILE
Mars Hill Baptist Church,PHILADELPHIA
Mars Hill Free Methodist Church,INDIANAPOLIS
New Comfort Baptist Church,PHILADELPHIA
New Jerusalem Baptist Church,PHILADELPHIA
New Mt. Pilgrim Missionary BaptistChurch,CHICAGO
New St. Paul Church,OAKLAND
New Utrecht Reformed Church,BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
Old First Reformed Church,PHILADELPHIA
People’s Progressive Community CenterChurch,CHICAGO
Phillipian Baptist Church,PHILADELPHIA
Quinn Chapel A.M.E. Church,CHICAGO
Reformed Episcopal Church of theAtonement,PHILADELPHIA
Roberts Park United Methodist Church,INDIANAPOLIS
Sacred Heart Catholic Church,INDIANAPOLIS
Sacred Heart Catholic Church,CAMDEN
Second Presbyterian Church,CHICAGO
St.Andrew and St. Monica’s EpiscopalChurch,PHILADELPHIA
St.Anthony’s Catholic Church,INDIANAPOLIS
St.Augustine Episcopal Church,CAMDEN
St.Augustine’s Episcopal Church,OAKLAND
St. Bridget’s Catholic Church,WHISTLER,ALABAMA
St. Cecilia’s Catholic Church,MT.VERNON,ALABAMA
St. Francis at the Point Episcopal Church,POINT CLEAR,ALABAMA
St. Francis Episcopal Church & St. JamesPhillipian Independent Church,CHICAGO
St. Francis Lutheran Church,SAN FRANCISCO
St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church,MOBILE
St. Hugh of Cluny Catholic Church,PHILADELPHIA
St. Ita Catholic Church,CHICAGO
St. James Presbyterian Church,NEW YORK
St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church,SAN FRANCISCO
St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church,INDIANAPOLIS
St. Joseph Baptist Church,PHILADELPHIA
St. Luke Lutheran Church,CHICAGO
St. Luke’s Episcopal Church,NEW YORK
St. Margaret’s Catholic Church,BAYOU LABATRE,ALABAMA
St. Mark’s Church in-the-Bowery,Episcopal,NEW YORK
St. Martin’s Episcopal Church,NEW YORK
St. Martin’s Episcopal KoreanCongregation,PHILADELPHIA
St. Mary’s Catholic Church,BEAVERVILLE, ILLINOIS
St. Mary’s Catholic Church,INDIANAPOLIS
St. Nicholas Serbian Orthodox Church,INDIANAPOLIS
St. Patrick’s Catholic Church,INDIANAPOLIS
St. Paul’s Episopal Church,OAKLAND
St. Paul’s Memorial Church, EpiscopalSTATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK
St. Paulus Lutheran ChurchSAN FRANSISCO
St. Peter Lutheran Church,CHICAGO
St. Peter’s Episcopal Church,PHILADELPHIA
St. Peter’s Lutheran Church,INDIANAPOLIS
St. Philomena Catholic Church,CHICAGO
St.Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church,CITRONELLE,ALABAMA
St.Vincent dePaul Prince of Peace CatholicChurch,MOBILE
State Street A.M.E. Church,MOBILE
Tabernacle Presbyterian Church,INDIANAPOLIS
Temple Sinai,OAKLAND
Third Spanish Baptist Church,BRONX, NEW YORK
Trinity Baptist Church,NEW YORK
Trinity Episcopal Church,SAN FRANCISCO
Twin Beach A.M.E. Zion Church,FAIRHOPE,ALABAMA
University Heights United MethodistChurch,INDIANAPOLIS
Victory Memorial United MethodistChurch,INDIANAPOLIS
Washington Square United MethodistChurch,NEW YORK
Washington Street United MethodistChurch,INDIANAPOLIS
Waters Memorial A.M.E. Church,PHILADELPHIA
Wissahickon Presbyterian Church,PHILADELPHIA
Woodland Avenue United PresbyterianChurch,PHILADELPHIA
Zion United Church of Christ,INDIANAPOLIS
47
Photo CreditsCover: Day care center,Trinity Memorial Episcopal Church,Philadelphia, PAPETER OLSON
PAGE 6: Soup kitchen, Church of the Holy Apostles, New York, NYPETER ZIRNIS
PAGE 10:Youth group dance practice,African Episcopal Church ofSt.Thomas, Philadelphia, PAPETER ZIRNIS
PAGE 12: Soup kitchen line, Church of the Holy Apostles,NewYork, NYPETER ZIRNIS
PAGE 15: Shelter at St. Paul’s Chapel, New York, NYDAVID FINN
PAGE 16: Manna food program, First Presbyterian Church,Philadelphia, PADIANE COHEN
PAGE 20:Arts performance at Grace Church Van Vorst,Jersey City, NJPETER ZIRNIS
PAGE 25: New Old South Church, Boston, MA
PAGE 26: Congregation B’nai Abraham, Philadelphia, PAPETER ZIRNIS
PAGE 27: St. James Cathedral, Seattle,WAFRED HOUSEL
PAGE 29: Ebenezer Baptist Church, Jersey City, NJPETER ZIRNIS
PAGE 31: Fire-damaged Asbury Methodist Church,Philadelphia, PAMICHAEL STERN
PAGE 33: Elmer Denis and The Rev. Mark Tolbert at Christ TempleChurch, Kansas City, MOFRED BLOCHER, KANSAS CITY STAR
PAGE 34: Berea Temple Seventh Day-Adventists, Baltimore, MD
PAGE 37: Partners for Sacred Places at the National Press Club,Washington, DCTUOMI FORREST
DESIGN: MALISH DESIGN LIMITED, PHILADELPHIA