A confusing building indicative of the organisation and the religion it promotes. The best interpretation we can make is that the brand has now been packaged and is ready for marketing as a 'fast food' solution for busy apartment dwellers wanting a little updated nostalgia. What is missing is a Starbucks refreshment concession.

The Society has never been big on architectural taste; too much time has been spent in make-shift buildings and hotels, even tents, that is has forgotten what old churches looked like. I know some of the older generation were shocked at what had become of the 'house of God' in the hands of the Society and had decided to give it a miss. Crude minimalism was not for them; the psychological adjustment was just too great to make.

If form follows function in this case, then I expect the expanse of tradition is being trimmed down to suit the modern age and no doubt the current management will be congratulating themselves in stealing a march on their rivals on how to deal with the redundancy of the old. My reaction is to rush back to those cathedrals and churches that have not been mutilated and ignore the rubbish that is going on inside!    

I totally disagree with you. You imply that the Society has no appreciation for beautiful, Cathedral-style Churches. The truth is, they cannot afford to build such Churches, based on what the "ordinary man in the pew" puts in the collection basket. Not only can we not afford to construct them, but we cannot afford to maintain them either, much as would love to have them.

The new seminary in Virginia is not being built with funds submitted by the "ordinary man in the pew"; that is money funneled in from "powerful sources in Europe" lined up by Max Krah.