Our church periodically undertakes long-range, or strategic, planning. When we consider where as a congregation we are going, it might be useful to look back to see what issues were important to us in the past – and how we have met the needs and wishes of our congregational predecessors. 

The June 1986 Long Range Planning Committee submitted a questionnaire to the congregation and held a hearing on a number of specific issues for the church, generally related to program development and growth. Categories within the questionnaire included Professional Staff and Administration, Organ and Sanctuary Aesthetics, and Building Preservation and Improvements. 

On the first page of its ten-page report to the Board of Trustees, the committee stated that “Both the questionnaire and the hearing showed clearly that the congregation (1) thinks campus ministry is important, (2) is passionately involved with the history of Channing-Murray and the Oregon-Mathews building, (3) is discontent with the current state of that ministry, and (4) is reluctant to commit money to the job of restoring that property to meet legal requirements.” The committee recommended two task forces, made up of five people each from the Church and Channing-Murray “to independently consider the following issues:

1. Consider the function of campus ministry.
2. Compare the function with the current reality and the personal and financial resources available to the Church and the Foundation [Channing-Murray].
3. Explore changes in the program structure of The Channing-Murray Foundation to accomplish this function.
4. Consider the future of the property at Oregon-Mathews in relation to these findings.”

Included in this report are some interesting remarks from the questionnaires. One comment concerning the appearance of the Church’s exterior said, “Others seemed offended at the idea that the Church appearance might be improved, saying such concerns were better left to the Methodists.” Another mention of the exterior criticized the East entrance, “with its look of a never-cleared bomb site.”

Respondents to the questionnaire also expressed “considerable dissatisfaction with bathroom arrangements, but a vehement split over the use of all the bathrooms by both sexes as an answer. One solution would be to convert some facilities to unisex use while keeping others (e.g., refurbished facilities off the Fellowship Hall) as separate men’s and women’s rooms.” 

Concerning the landscaping, the “planting and maintenance seem redolent of the early 1970s when a supposedly ‘natural’ approach was thought to signify moral correctness.” 

On the matter of accessibility, the committee wrote, “Surely talk, controversy, and animosity over this issue have gone on long enough. While the congregation as a whole seemed not to place a top priority on accessibility, those most affected did. Integration must be the key concept in any access plan: integration of those affected into the mainstream social program of the Church, and integration of any physical solution into the overall functional and visual workings of the Church.”

A congregant responded to the questionnaire with a number of legal-sized sheets filled with remarks on a variety of topics. On Channing-Murray, they said, “A noble cause that is above our church’s ability to accomplish it. I personally came here four years ago thrilled with the idea of an active campus ministry program. I have watched it struggle, cough, and sputter. It is a tremendous drain on this parish, a parish that has its own problems. We seem in love with the building more that the concept. A major focused study should be paid for and mounted. If CMD, UUA, or a major benefactor can’t be found, the building should be sold. If we could swing retaining use of a major meeting room in whatever complex that replaces the building, super. But if not, take those funds and do campus ministry right.”