Lexford Park (formerly First Christian Church)

[Rover]

I think it is fair. And I think it is accurate. It is common for us in the church to say that "we are of the spirit" and "not of the business world", but, in truth, we are in the business of the spirit. We build physical structures and engage in financial transactions. We want our version of the cause of Christ to attract other people. When we are not attractive, people do not attend our church.

So, people go to church because of the edifices? Sounds pretty pagan to me. I thought it was about worshiping the Lord.

[dankrutka]

I was in OKC this weekend and I am just in awe of this building. It is so beautiful and unique. I just don't think I could see OKC tearing down another piece of its history for a generic development.

[Pete]

I can see it from my office at the Gazette.

It's one of my favorite buildings in all of OKC.

[OKC_Chipper]

We live in Central Park just to the southwest. I tell people we live in Central Park and they have no idea what I’m talking about. I say right next to the Egg Church and they immediately know where I’m talking about. It’s got to be a top 5 most widely known building in Oklahoma City.

[Dob Hooligan]

Yes, but who's Lord? We worship a Lord who is appealing and attractive to us. The Southern Baptist version of the Lord who approved of slavery became non-appealing and the church moved away from Him. The Mormon lord who approved of polygamy became less appealing and most of the church moved away.

[Ross MacLochness]

Yes, but who's Lord? We worship a Lord who is appealing and attractive to us. The Southern Baptist version of the Lord who approved of slavery became non-appealing and the church moved away from Him. The Mormon lord who approved of polygamy became less appealing and most of the church moved away.

This is precisely whats so hilarious about dogma and why excluding or killing another person based on what they believe is abhorrent.

[Rover]

Yes, but who's Lord? We worship a Lord who is appealing and attractive to us. The Southern Baptist version of the Lord who approved of slavery became non-appealing and the church moved away from Him. The Mormon lord who approved of polygamy became less appealing and most of the church moved away.

So, are you saying Christ is fluid and stands for whatever society at the time wants to believe he is? That a Christian church should continuously change its "truth" to fit whatever contemporary society says they would like it to be and are most entertained by?

If that is the feeling about faith, why should we put much stock in human history and value things like this church.... let's just go with whatever the current people want and value..... Lots of bars, restaurants, Starbucks, cbd, front door parking, and cheap rent. Who needs reminders of historically significant elements of society or what was thought to be significant or beautiful at one time.

[dankrutka]

[WileyPostage]

Yes, but who's Lord? We worship a Lord who is appealing and attractive to us. The Southern Baptist version of the Lord who approved of slavery became non-appealing and the church moved away from Him. The Mormon lord who approved of polygamy became less appealing and most of the church moved away.

[bombermwc]

So, are you saying Christ is fluid and stands for whatever society at the time wants to believe he is? That a Christian church should continuously change its "truth" to fit whatever contemporary society says they would like it to be and are most entertained by?

If that is the feeling about faith, why should we put much stock in human history and value things like this church.... let's just go with whatever the current people want and value..... Lots of bars, restaurants, Starbucks, cbd, front door parking, and cheap rent. Who needs reminders of historically significant elements of society or what was thought to be significant or beautiful at one time.

Off topic yeah, but a quite reply:

These things are things that man has built. The Lord didn't make Catholic and Protestant, man did. The Lord didn't make Baptist and Methodist and Lutheran, etc....man did. We created things to gather people of like minds together, and HOPEFULLY still works towards the same goals but in our own ways. So did the Lord change? No. But as Rover said, The Church often does change and adapt to stay relevant. I mean we use electricity, air conditioners, copiers, computers, pens, and TVs, and organs, drums, and ......... dont we? We apparently decided that adapting at some level was ok and that it didn't detract from what the whole point was.

While it's not my thing, if someone that goes to a megachurch needs that Starbucks to get them there, but then they connect to the Word and do good in the world, then i'm all for it. It's not a contest of us vs. them. You don't invite someone to church because you want to steal them from the other church next door....you're on the same side remember. It's like stealing your own team member. So if they do leave your building, it might be a hit for your own congregation, but in the grand scheme, it's only a loss if they turn away from The Lord.

So in terms of First of OKC, these are congregational issues that have been long running and are widespread across the U.S. in terms of traditional churches. The fight to stay relevant is a big one. If this wasn't such an iconic structure, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So the folks in this thread have also already decided that their opinions about the building are more important than whether or not a congregation survives. And to me, that's just as sad as the possibility of an iconic structure being lost.

[Dob Hooligan]

Gosh. I don't interpret anyone on this thread not caring about whether the congregation survives. I think the most harsh opinion would be that the market is changing and they are not adapting in a manner that allows growth (or even survival). I don't like it, but it seems fair.

[Urban Pioneer]

Speaking as someone that's involved in church leadership, Pete, that comment may be overall true but the solutions are far more complicated that that makes it sound. Churches are living things that require cooperation among all ages. You will see the older folks in the more traditional churches that are stereo typically less willing to adjust. Thankfully, we dont have that problem in our congregation. But it's always a struggle because those older folks are typically the elders and control what the church does. In most of those failed churches, either demographics changed where there just aren't younger folks there any longer or the leaders failed to adjust to attract/keep them. With OKC, you saw both problems.

With ANY church, you need to attract younger families to keep the church alive. Those people are the future of the church just like when those elders were the younger folks. You need things for the younger folks to do together...support structure. You need CHILD CARE for activities. Whether you're traditional or contemporary, same things apply.

It's super easy to simply say 'they didn't adjust so they deserve to close', but that's very not fair to any church.

This.

I was there during the last minor schism. I wasn't going to get into it as Pete has put out a fairly black and white perspective that at its core is true. However, there were larger issues at play here. From day one the church was beset with the tragic death of its founder. There are several multiples of factors here that have caused people to leave and have stifled growth. Demographics are huge but internal issues, decisions, and personalities are at play here too. I actually left regular active attendance when Don Alexander Jr. retired. That was the initial motivating factor for me.

Churches are living organisms as you attest. They evolve or devolve due to multitudes of factors.

[benjico]

'm curious that, if saved, what could be done with this property and what creative ideas some of you may have for it.

Let's say the building is saved but no longer houses the congregation. You're tasked with developing the entire property and incorporating a new purpose for the church building. What plans do you propose?

[Pete]

It could be like the Wheeler District where the larger un- or under-developed property is used for housing and other uses then the main buildings (airport terminal and hanger vs. sanctuary and theater) are used for bar/restaurant/museum/event space.

There is tons of property to be developed without touching the main structures. And very different from the Gold Dome which is basically just a building and a bit of land.

That property surrounding First Christian is beautiful and almost perfectly located. It could support the main buildings instead of that portion being expected to cash flow on its own.

[hoya]

Perhaps somebody should contact the LifeChurch people and see if they could set up a group there and keep it functioning as a church.

[BDP]

'm curious that, if saved, what could be done with this property and what creative ideas some of you may have for it.

Let's say the building is saved but no longer houses the congregation. You're tasked with developing the entire property and incorporating a new purpose for the church building. What plans do you propose?

There are a lot of cool examples of re-purposed churches. It seems housing is common with smaller churches. Larger ones are often turned into restaurants, bars, and retail, like a book store. I haven't been inside it, but it looks like the sanctuary is very large, which would allow for all kinds of concepts, including just a really unique event center. With its large atrium, it could be built out for multiple levels as well.

As Pete pointed out, it could be a sort of "value add" community center as part of a larger, integrated residential development like wheeler.

Here is a piece I found showing some examples:

11 New Uses for Old Churches

The "entrepreneurial center" is kind of cool and could generate cash flow a developer... That book store looks pretty bad ass, as well.

Not really advocating for any of these ideas for this church, but thought the examples would be helpful.

[shawnw]

Historic Preservation Commission passed the historic landmark overlay

[Pete]

Historic Preservation Commission passed the historic landmark overlay

Reminder what they passed is just a resolution to start the process.

Ultimately, the city council will need 7 of 9 positive votes for it to pass officially (7 of 9 because the church has formally protested, rather than a simple majority).

It does create a 6-month stay where they can't demolish or make significant alterations.

[shawnw]

sorry I should have been clearer, I did see that it was a resolution and that it would be a 180+ day process

[mugofbeer]

I think there is a charter school or something in the eastern part of the church property that used to be their youth center and softball field. Is this still part of the church land or was it sold?

[mugofbeer]

There are a lot of cool examples of re-purposed churches. It seems housing is common with smaller churches. Larger ones are often turned into restaurants, bars, and retail, like a book store. I haven't been inside it, but it looks like the sanctuary is very large, which would allow for all kinds of concepts, including just a really unique event center. With its large atrium, it could be built out for multiple levels as well.

As Pete pointed out, it could be a sort of "value add" community center as part of a larger, integrated residential development like wheeler.

Here is a piece I found showing some examples:

11 New Uses for Old Churches

The "entrepreneurial center" is kind of cool and could generate cash flow a developer... That book store looks pretty bad ass, as well.

Not really advocating for any of these ideas for this church, but thought the examples would be helpful.

55+ housing on the expanse of vacant land. Use the church as a senior center and clubhouse for the development.

[bombermwc]

Asbestos abatement is going to be big and expensive for whatever group purchases the place. So deep pockets are a requirement (if it's not dozed) and probably why it's still not sold. It's been 3 years, so obviously there's something there that is keeping people away. It's not like it's magically went on the market 3 months ago. We, in the DoC denomination, have been hearing about the place being for sale and getting ready to "close" for years but it keeps hanging on. We've got a vested interest since our regional office is on the land.....

[Pete]

^

Asbestos is only a problem if it is disturbed and if they plan to keep what is there, that should not be a big issue.

[CloudDeckMedia]

Negatives: Asbestos (can be encapsulated), energy inefficiency, perhaps inefficient interior layout.
Positives: Iconic design, historical designation, great location, room to expand to the N and E.

Missing anything?

[yukong]

Asbestos abatement is going to be big and expensive for whatever group purchases the place. So deep pockets are a requirement (if it's not dozed) and probably why it's still not sold. It's been 3 years, so obviously there's something there that is keeping people away. It's not like it's magically went on the market 3 months ago. We, in the DoC denomination, have been hearing about the place being for sale and getting ready to "close" for years but it keeps hanging on. We've got a vested interest since our regional office is on the land.....

Asbestos abatement will be required prior to demolition if that is the eventual outcome. So, it really is a nonissue. And as others said...if it can be encapsulated where it cannot become airborne, then it can remain. However, that does create a liability issue, and thus most owners would prefer to abate. But regardless...tearing the place down will require the same abatement of the asbestos before demo as abatement for restoration of the structure.