Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ElectricStar87 t1_ixz25q6 wrote

Reply to comment by kermelie in Five houses targeted for demolition in Mount Vernon historic district by Rubysdad1975

This is a Greek Orthodox Church, with a specific focus on that specific community. They don’t have any more specific obligation to serve people located nearby than a Korean Presbyterian church in Lagos or an African AME church in Reykjavik would. And that’s just staying within the generally Christian sense of a religious community.

I think the bigger (and only) issue is that it’s a tax exempt institution that appears to primarily serve people outside the city, and wishes to make architectural/zoning changes to buildings that are completely separate from infrastructure critical to the functioning of the institution itself, and the changes (at least seem to) negatively impact the neighborhood without providing any tangible benefit. That’s it.

One thing to also keep in mind — if we value the Greek Church structure itself historically, somebody has to maintain it, and those funds have to come from somewhere…

To everyone talking about affordable housing — it’s unlikely these buildings themselves would provide affordable housing if rehabbed; the benefit would come from increasing the total supply of housing in the immediate vicinity.

(edited partially in light of kermelie’s comments below)

4

kermelie t1_ixz7zec wrote

Not sure where you disagree with me but I don’t disagree with any of your points.

2

ElectricStar87 t1_ixzgtuy wrote

Hey, apologies — I read into your comment too much. Edited my comment partially to reflect that. Thanks.

3

Renaiconna t1_ixzbb1u wrote

> This is a Greek Orthodox Church, with a specific focus on that specific community.

True.

> They have no more specific obligation to “serve” people located nearby

Not true. They actually do, ethically speaking, just not legally. (ETA: meaning their obligation is due to the religion to which they belong, not due to any contract or state or federal laws.) And they do - there’s a “Loaves and Fishes” program that makes food for local soup kitchens and shelters, pre-pandemic we had an active food and clothes bank running from the church itself that’s starting to get back on its feet, Weekend Backpacks delivered to city schools with cereal and canned goods to send home with city students who are food insecure, AA meetings in the church to serve the immediate area, leftover furniture from the annual flea market fundraiser donated to organizations to furnish homes for low income renters… not to mention straight monetary donations to local non-religious organizations. Like I get people on reddit are generally anti-religious, but there are a lot of assumptions in this thread that are entirely off-base from the actual reality.

2

ElectricStar87 t1_ixzgexz wrote

I already couched the explanation within the Christian tradition and the examples I mention speak to the dual religious-ethnic focus of similar communities.

And while I think you already mean this, I think it’s more apt to say that they have a “religious” or “ethics-religious” obligation, not a generally ethical obligation, but I’m starting to split hairs ;-)

5

Renaiconna t1_ixzr4vt wrote

Fair. I wasn’t arguing with you so much as using your comment (which I only had the minor picky issue with) as a springboard to try to correct presumptions made by others in this thread. It’s just really disheartening to be constantly compared to the Catholic churches, or a mega-church, or some tax shelter for county residents when none of that is true. It’s plenty expensive maintaining the historic structure of the cathedral itself (built in the 1880s by Protestants, 50 or so years later left to rot after that parish had financial issues before being bought and restored by Annunciation). People are acting like these buildings were ever remotely habitable in the time the church has had them (nope, at least not without massive amounts of money being sunk into them) and that the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would take to restore them is something that a self-sufficient church just has (it does not).

I understand people’s concerns with historic value and architectural character. Maybe with the threat of razing the buildings, perhaps UB or another local institution with far more resources might now consider buying them (when they haven’t wanted to previously), and honestly there are plenty of folks in the parish that would prefer to rid themselves of the burden entirely.

3

ElectricStar87 t1_ixzsogg wrote

Point taken; thanks.

And to be clear, I have no issue with the (claimed) assertion that the majority of the members of that community tend to live in the county rather than the city. It’s only nominally relevant to the question at hand, and I am generally in favor of people from the county having some relationship to the city, whatever the form that may take, and vice versa for city residents. The city/county distinction is rather arbitrary in Baltimore.

2

CaptainObvious110 t1_iy22q3p wrote

Which raises the question of why they would accept or hold onto properties if they do not have the means of repairing them?

If anything selling those properties would make available more funds that could be used to maintain their building and to assist others as they have been doing.

Please forgive me if I have said anything wrong.

2

Renaiconna t1_iy37gl1 wrote

Quoting myself from another reply: >It was a donation from a parishioner, along with the second parking lot across from MedChi. There were initially hopes to be able to use the buildings for something, but the money wasn’t there and really hasn’t been there to be able to do anything substantial with them.

As for why accept… the church is not in the habit of turning down donations. They wouldn’t be able to survive if they were.

1

fakeguru2000 t1_iy034yc wrote

Who knew that followers of Christ could pick and choose which communities they served. I thought Christ showed by travel preaching all over, providing relief to those in need that it was their mission.

So wherever you go, make disciples of all nations: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19

1

Renaiconna t1_iy06176 wrote

They were founded by immigrants. They chose to stay in the spot those immigrants established and continue to give back to the city in which these congregants still have a spiritual home. Are you saying they should just be transient evangelists? They baptize people in the Trinity - they’re Trinitarian, and also don’t rebaptize other Trinitarian converts. I don’t understand your point.

0

fakeguru2000 t1_iy07j2u wrote

Are they Christians? Are they followers of Christ? Do they use the Bible as a source of Knowledge? Because I listed the Christian scripture Matthew 28:19 that is attributed to Christ as a commandment to ALL Christians. I thought the Greek Orthodox Church was Christian in foundation. Christian means followers of Christ. How can any Christian, believe they don’t have an obligation to those around them. That’s the tenet of Christ himself. I didn’t say they should be traveling evangelist.

Just a correction: The Greek Orthodoxy was founded by Christ’s Apostles.

2

Renaiconna t1_iy0i7h9 wrote

>How can any Christian, believe they don’t have an obligation to those around them.

So here’s why I’m confused, because you responded to my comment in which I literally listed the various ministries in the community from this one particular parish that results from such a religious obligation.

Old Testament came before the Church (of course), the Church started with Christ (rather a given, there), and the growth of the early Church coincided with writing the New Testament (see epistles), and the Church later codified all those into the Bible. Scripture and tradition (handed down starting from Christ, then thus to the apostles [see Pentacost], and so on and so forth) are considered inseparable in Orthodoxy. So yes, we follow scripture since it’s an integral part of Christianity. I’m still not seeing your point.

1

fakeguru2000 t1_iy0jouq wrote

The confusion is there because you took my comment as disagreement when I agree that the church has an obligation to the community around it vs the commenter who posted this church has no obligation to the community. Apologies for the confusion. I listed the scripture to show that the church has a responsibility to the community around it. Not legally but ethically and definitely binding by Christ command.

3

Renaiconna t1_iy0m6a2 wrote

Ah! Understood now, thank you for clarifying. There are a lot of misconceptions flying around elsewhere in this comment section, so I was already feeling a little defensive, but it is definitely still my fault for presuming negative intentions; please forgive me.

2

fakeguru2000 t1_iy0ngv5 wrote

I understand. Don’t be defensive though. Many people are misinformed but become aware through your grounded debate. When dealing with Christian matters I add evidence text so people can’t refute especially since the Bible is the foundation of Christianity. I don’t get into doctrine debates only the words that are attributed to Christ words. Keep on teaching!

3

CaptainObvious110 t1_iy217ad wrote

I have nothing but respect for them from a religious standpoint. My contention is merely where it comes to the houses and what they plan to do with them.

Why did they acquire the homes in the first place and did they originally have an intent to rehab them?

1