Hi Patricia,
I don’t mean this in an offensive way, truly I don’t. But what in the world does 47K get used for? I mean, that would be a hefty downpayment on a house (or even a church)! There are no taxes, so all you’ve got is heat, air, electricity, water/sewer, lawn maintenance/landscaping (which at my church is done by parishioners), and cleaning products. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine why any meetinghouse should cost that much to maintain unless there’s a major improvement/repair planned. Also, I’ve never been to a meeting that had more than around 60–70 people in attendance. Doing the math, that’s quite a lot per person. Just curious.
Julie

Recently, my husband and I were called upon to rescue the Archbishop of Cape Town (head of the Anglican church in Southern Africa and the successor to Archbishop Tutu’s seat) from a long lay over at Dulles Airport which is not too far from my meeting. We took him out to lunch at a local restaurant and then, since we had a little time to spare, we took him to the meetinghouse. When we entered, the sense of the many generations of good Quaker folk who had worshiped there was palpable and a hush descended upon us. Quite spontaneously we sat down and entered the silence for what I can only describe as a brief Meeting for Worship. The presence of the Spirit flowed through us and over us. It was an extraordinary experience and it would not have happened but for the opportunity afforded by the existence of the meetinghouse. My point is not that we needed the meetinghouse to pray together, but that God used this opportunity to bless us.

Perhaps, rather than viewing the issue of our meetinghouses as an either/or proposition, we should look upon them more in terms of both/and. If we use those spaces well, as part of our Quaker witness to the wider world, they can amplify our ministry. No meetinghouse, no matter how historic or beautiful, can take the place of a worship community, filled with the Spirit and going about God’s work. We have ample evidence of that. And even if we sold these spaces and “gave the money to the poor,” there is no guarantee that that is, in and of itself, God’s work. (Anyone who has had anything to do with foreign aid can attest to that!) Our meetinghouses are not sacred or holy, but assets to be put to God’s service. If we are faithful and follow the leadings of the Spirit, we will “come down where we ought to be.”

Some of the newer charismatic movements rent space when they need it, for accessible loos, children’s meeting rooms and so on — I know one that is just about bursting the seams of the club they rent, and another that meets in a local leisure centre. Nightclubs are often vacant at the times churches meet. So I don’t think we need meeting houses with distinctive architecture to provide for those needs, nor for meeting outside someone’s home. ETA: Oh — I am guessing this is what you meant about fire halls in the post before this one. I should follow conversations in date order instead of reading backwards.

Also love what Marshall Massey is saying below, thanks for writing that!

I am mulling over something about taking the meeting house into my life, instead. The spare plain architecture is an example I can contemplate, as my own life undergoes changes in my attempts to follow Jesus. There is an aesthetic which is starting to make an impression on me — I think if I ever get decorating and building skills, my space might start to look “meeting-house-ish”. I’m a slow learner in several ways, and I am nowhere near there yet, but I can feel a pull. The architecture is another example of those treasures of the Quaker heritage that we can mine as we search for ways to be really faithful in the now.

I wish I had more time for writing. I recently ended 15 years of private practice as a psychotherapist to take a full-time job (they made me an offer I couldn’t refuse.) Where I used to have cancellations and no-shows that gave me time to think and write, now I am busy busy busy. Love the job; it has changed things though.

There is more I would like to say on the issue of Young Friends and their importance to our Society, the original context which Micah addressed. I feel the discussion has been somewhat polarized, and that the reality is nowhere near so clear-cut. I have seen Meetings in which it was not age per se, but how long you had been a member of the Meeting that determined how much influence you had (and growing up in it was particularly well-thought-of.) I have seen many Meetings which cherished and encouraged their Young Friends — I came of age as a Friend in just such a Meeting, and cannot imagine my Quaker journey would have been as rich and deep if that had not been the case. So much more to say on this topic and I haven’t fully thought it through. It may require a fuller exposition on my blog. Again, I’m not offering these few words as the last word, but just trying to say that there is room for a much wider viewpoint than I see so often expressed when this comes up.

Oh it’s you Bruce?! Good, thanks, I’ll update the post with this info. Since you’re active on QuakerQuaker (http://www.quakerquaker.org/profile/DrBruceRArnold) and use your name there, I’ve always thought of your blog as Bruce Arnold’s blog and didn’t recognize its name. I’d like to hear more about the efforts at meeting planting and what’s worked and hasn’t.