9/30/62

Scripture: Ezra 5: 6-15

Text: Ezra 5: 11b; “We are rebuilding the house that was built many years ago, which a great king of Israel built and finished.” Ezra 5: 15b; “Let the house of God be rebuilt on its site.”

It was nearly 51 years ago, in late November of 1911, that this church building was dedicated to the worship of God and the service of man. Pastor of the church at that time was the Rev. Fred Staff. I am told that he preached his first sermon in the new sanctuary on a text from the 4th chapter of the book of Joshua [verse 6], “What mean ye by these stones?” Joshua was referring to stones that were set up by representatives of the 12 tribes of Israel as a lasting reminder to the children of Israel that God had done something wonderful for them.

I do not know what application the Rev. Mr. Staff made to the stones of the edifice that was then new. But the stones of this house have been a reminder to hundreds of people in the last half century that God has done wondrous things for us.

The men and women who provided for, and planned, the building of this church were people of no small vision! This church had outgrown two previous homes. The first had been completed in 1865 and was used for perhaps 35 years before its use was replaced by another house. The second was built in 1889 and was used over 20 years before the present edifice was ready. The builders of 1910 and 11 knew that a church congregation can and should grow. And they built for the future. They built a church home of strength and dignity, with considerable capacity in room. And then, what they knew could happen, did happen. There were those, like Mr. George Mead, who believed that adequate provision had been made for Sunday School space above ground, and who intended that the church children should never have to go to class in a “hole in the ground” as they called the basement.

But it was not long before the fine new Sunday School area was crowded. And children were sent to the basement for classes. And this has been going on for years, until now, when for the second year we are having to put at least one large class per week outside these walls in Pilgrim House. Other classes are fairly “popping the seams” of the available space. So now it is time for more vision, and more building.

We have known for some time that our church school facilities are inadequate. Not everyone realizes this. Those whose chief contact with the facilities is their attendance at worship in this room on Sunday morning may not know how seriously crowded many of the classrooms are, how difficult it is to plan departmental worship and activity, how practically impossible it is to provide for the number and grading of departments to conform to modern curriculum procedures, how anxious some of the parents and teachers are over the possibility that an emergency such as fire or similar catastrophe could cut off egress for the children of some classes. But these problems are real, and their solution is nearly impossible to find in the quarters now available for church school work. Some of the parents have known this for some time. Most of the teachers have known it. Church officers have been concerned with it.

It was a church trustee, who, being single, had no children of her own in the Sunday School, but nonetheless became convinced of the need which she had seen while serving earlier as a deaconess and as a member of the Board of Religious Education. Miss Anna McMillan gave practical expression to her concern by providing in her will that a very substantial portion of her estate should, some time in the future, come to the trustees of this church to be used for building and maintaining suitable quarters for educational and recreational activities of the young people of this church or affiliated groups.

May her kind of concern and vision be multiplied among the membership of this congregation, with thoughtful provision for this local church, for its outreach into the Christian World Mission, for the training of ministers, for the sustaining of its concern for student education, care for the advanced in years, and for the other ministries that are needed.

Enough of our people are concerned so that a survey was authorized more than two years ago. We commissioned Rowland Associates to study our building in the light of our expressed needs. The report of that firm, which we have generally called the “Rowland Report” was submitted two years ago. Those who have studied the report carefully are convinced that an unjustifiably large expenditure of money would be required to revise or expand our present building for educational and parish activities. And we would still have an old building temporarily adapted for a comparatively short time.

The answer seems to be a new building --- not just alterations or additions to our present quarters -- but new construction! There is little doubt that an educational and parish activities plant is imperative if this church is to continue growing and if it is to do the right kind of training of its membership. Recognizing the need, we moved a year ago to invite the Rev. John R. Scotford to come to us for a consultation. John Scotford is a Congregational minister who has made a very considerable study of church architecture and planning, has written at least one book and numerous magazine articles on the subject, and has conferred with many congregations on their needs and building plans.

Many of you remember that a copy of the Scotford report was mailed by the chairman of our Church Council to the homes of our parish last December. You also recall that in January of this year, the annual meeting of our church instructed the church council to make a study of our situation and bring a recommendation to the church within six months. The Council appointed an advisory committee to study especially our site and other sites that might appear worth careful consideration. This advisory committee has done a great deal of work. Its members have tried to evaluate our present site, and it has earnestly tried to develop possibility of one or more alternate sites so that the congregation might weigh a choice. No alternate site has been found feasible though more than one possibility was explored.

It now appears most likely that the committee will report back to the council that no alternate site appears feasible. The council will then make its report to the congregation. This is the year of decision, so far as our location is concerned. We must decide now, this season, whether we will stay here, or seek to move our plant elsewhere in the future. If we stay here, many of us believe that we should very soon start plans for building on the property that we have acquired.

My own feeling is that we should not plan to extend the present building but should erect an educational unit separate from this present church building. It should be planned to accommodate what we would like to do for our very young, pre-school children. Consideration may be given to possible crib care during church services; to care of toddlers; to classes for three, four, and five year old children. There should be adequate departmental and classroom facilities not only for kindergarten age children, but for primary children as well, for lower juniors and juniors, for junior high school and senior high school folk and for mature adults.

Probably the building should have adequate social rooms, perhaps getting our Colonial Room out of the basement into an equivalent space above ground level. This might mean kitchen and dining facilities in the new building. Probably offices for the two ministers and a church office space for the secretary should be included. These things should be carefully studied by a building committee and designed by an architect.

Things like parking must be planned. It should be part of the planning that children could get to their parents’ cars without having to go to the street to do so.

And we need to plan for more than mere utility. Our building should have both usefulness and beauty in its design. It should take advantage of the fact that it will stand near the beautiful Wisconsin River. In studying sites, the Advisory committee concluded that a site near to the banks of the River is greatly to be desired. Our present site has that asset, together with the fact that it is very near to the center of our parish as shown on a spot map.

Dr. John Scotford pointed out, in his report, that the frontage on the river offers an unusual opportunity to claim the attention of all who cross the bridge, provided we make all our moves and plans to claim that attention. Our church should be easily seen -- noticeable and inviting, because it is not alone for us who have already joined in its membership, but we must be reaching out in invitation and welcome to others who have come, and will come, to our community.

We must build both for the now and for the future. You may be concerned for your own children now. Five or ten years from now they may have grown past the kind of need which you now feel. But other children will be coming along with comparable needs.

It is probably not wise to build the kind of cathedral that will last for hundreds of years. We can not determine now what will be the requirements even a half century from now, what may be the population shifts and drifts, the teaching methods, and so on. But we should probably build adequately and with flexible provision, for what we envision to be the needs of the congregation in the next 50 years.

It is true of churches and schools in our city that their plants have greatly changed in the last 15 years. Three school buildings, adequate in the prime of their day, have been demolished. New, and for our time, much better buildings have been erected in their place. Other school structures have seen substantial addition.

When I came to Wisconsin Rapids in 1940, the Congregational Church building was nearly the most substantial, modern, and adequate of the churches in the city. But it is now among the oldest, and is less adequate. Nearly every other congregation in the city, Protestant and Catholic, has new facilities, and modern tools with which to carry on their work.

We shall be seriously short-sighted unless we give earnest thought to a new sanctuary while we plan an educational building. The advisory committee found this to be a necessity while studying the problems of site. It is not wise to plan an educational unit without giving careful thought to the sanctuary.

In the well known Westminster Catechism, the question is asked: “What is the chief end of man?” and the answer given is, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” We might seek some differing wording for this aim. But it remains the truth that our worship of God is the most significant thing we do as Christian folk. And the sanctuary in which we gather for worship should be central to any planning which we do.

It was Dr. Scotford’s opinion that the simplest plan we could follow, and in the long run probably the less expensive, would be to go to a new site and build a whole new church plant! He took cognizance of the probability that we would stay here and conceded that, “if the congregation is willing to pay the price in careful thought, it can probably achieve an excellent result on the present location.”

He repeated the observation that we have here the two cardinal virtues of centrality and a highly visible location. But we ought to take full advantage of the possibility. He envisioned a future sanctuary on the “down-river” side of our block where it could be more readily seen from the bridge. This would be approximately where the associate minister’s parsonage now stands. Further, Dr. Scotford urged that we “erect our standard,” “raise our flag,” in the building of a tower, steeple, cross or pylon as near the site of the old Baptist church as possible so that it will call attention to the fact that this is a church edifice.

If all of this is held in our planning, it means that the educational building should be planned so as to reserve these spaces for a sanctuary of the future.

Personally, I think that there would be real wisdom in building a whole new plant now. Our fathers in the congregation have twice had the vision to build larger and better church houses. We could very well emulate their example.

Our present sanctuary has much to commend it. It has an intimacy which church-goers increasingly desire. The feeling of fellowship, the acoustics, the centrality of the preached word, is all commendable. And these features should be preserved and improved in any new sanctuary of the future. But a growing congregation is going to need more flexibility in space. When our room is full, those who are seated on the front pews look up at an angle that, for some, becomes quite uncomfortable. When we need overflow space we raise a wall; but it is nearly impossible to preserve the feeling of unified fellowship for those who must sit in the Sunday school room; and hearing as well as seeing is a problem in their participation. A sanctuary with a good narthex where people could meet each other in unhurried minutes of Christian social fellowship at the close of worship would be a vast improvement over the more crowded entrance that we now have.

A new sanctuary could, and should, be designed to admit people at ground level without climbing the flights of stairs which must now be negotiated at either entrance to the church. To the young and agile, the stairs present little difficulty. But you and I know people -- members of our congregation and people who might be members -- aging in years, or limited or even crippled in body, who can not climb the stairs or who do so with difficulty and danger to themselves.

A new sanctuary, like a new educational plant, will be a tool for the ministry of worship and Christian fellowship. Any workman knows the worth of good tools, modern tools, the best tools which he can find for use in his craft. We need good tools for our church life no less than in any other field.

The time has come to make our church plant a major concern in the life of the congregation. Let none of us hold back, waiting with an onlooker’s interest to see what “they” are going to do about church building. Rather, let “us” consider what “we” shall do. Talk about it! Study it! Be ready for service on committees as the church council sets them up. Volunteer for service! Be ready with your own well-considered opinion when the council comes before the congregation with specific proposals. If and when business meetings of the congregation are planned and announced, be there, to become informed, to share your own opinions and information. Help to decide the kind of building we are to have, and help to build it with your time, your gifts and your prayers. Be in on the decision as to whether a new sanctuary should be included now or deferred until later. But plan for it!

The book of Ezra recounts an experience in the life of the Israelite people. For years they had suffered in defeat by Babylon. Their beautiful temple had been destroyed and the ornaments and sacred vessels carried away. Now they had a chance to restore some of their losses. Some of them set about to have another temple. They were hard at work when messengers came from King Darius to inquire what they were doing. Their reply: “We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and we are rebuilding the house that was built many years ago, which a great king of Israel built and finished.” It was a later king, Cyrus of Babylon, who had decreed concerning a temple in Jerusalem: “Let the house of God be rebuilt on its site.”

Without waiting for destruction or complete decay of our temple of worship and learning, which was builded by men of great vision in their day, we have opportunity to rebuild the house of God here, that we may serve Him better at worship and in service to people now in this community, and those who shall come in future time. Let us be about the building with a will. Let us pray about, plan over it, labor to create it, and expect to use it as a tool in God’s work. [Prayer]

-------Delivered in Wisconsin Rapids, September 30, 1962.