Today NPR aired an interesting story about a Christian Science church in Washington DC that poses a problem for the congregation that worships there. Its congregation would like to tear it down and build again. It's apparently a problem to maintain--expensive and not particularly people-friendly. But in 1991 the church ended up on the list of historic landmarks in the District, and now the Church has filed suit to remove the designation. The congregation quite obviously wants the right to worship as it sees fit, and part of that right includes tearing down the church and recreating a building that suits it. Opposed are folks who think that the Church's original building is worth preserving for secular and cultural reasons, people who think that something in the architecture of the building enriches us all.
This notion also raises another issue--the notion that a church that is still serving a congregation could be designated an historic landmark, and thus could be theoretically eligible for taxpayer funds for preservation. Such churches already exist--look at the Old North Church in Boston. Now, as far as I know, the congregation at the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, in DC hasn't asked for federal funds to maintain this church that it apparently finds a burden. But if it can't tear it down and build anew, then should it? Maybe then, magically, the situation could be resolved. Here's more about how the dispute developed.
Comments