1920 Fire Centennial—Part Three by David M. Fulk
This is the third in a series of blog articles discussing the destructive March 21, 1920, fire and the five-year journey to a new building and brighter future.
I was shocked to realize it’s been two years since my last blog posting for this series. Ughh. Those first two posts can be found here and here.
In spite of losing their building, everything seemed so promising that summer of 1920:
the aftermath of WWI and the Spanish Flu pandemic was passed;
there was a vision for a larger building with a completed basement by winter;
$75,000 in pledges were in hand;
a renewed and increased missions commitment was emerging;
respect was growing for the relatively new pastor;
an expanding prominence locally and within the Missouri and Southern Baptist Conventions was unfolding;
and on the list went.
Then came the architect’s news…the building they dreamed of would cost more than twice what they thought—double the pledges already received. The $150,000 cost didn’t include $57,000 for a completed basement or any furnishings. This put the projected cost over $200,000 with a $125,000 shortfall.
This was a serious setback, but they were undeterred. The new building was the centerpiece of their vision for growth, so the financial shortfall was secondary. To ease their dilemma, the Building Committee suggested dividing the construction project into two phases: education space and auditorium, giving time to raise additional pledges.
At the September 26 business meeting, the Building Committee recommended starting with the education building. Bids exceeded $78,000 (without furnishings). Still higher than expected, the committee recommended postponing construction until spring 1921 due to the “unsettled condition of things in the building trades and excessive cost of materials and labor.” (That sounds familiar in 2022!) The Building Committee report was received, but not approved. The vote was put off four days to the weekly prayer meeting.
On September 30, the committee’s motion was to reject all bids and postpone, but not everyone agreed. Twenty-two prominent members, including the pastor, spoke—11 in favor and 11 against the motion. (Sense the tension?) A standing vote was taken. The motion to reject the bids and postpone failed 37 to 39. Even so, it was decided to recommit the entire matter back to the building committee. They paid the architect $4,085 and waited for spring.
Through that fall and winter, the church had time to develop a plan to raise the shortfall. The idea of State and Home Mission Boards (HMB) helping fund the construction progressed by November. Pastor Mangum reported a statewide fundraising campaign would happen the next February to raise $200,000 for the construction of two historic churches: First Baptist Columbia and Second Baptist Liberty.
Initially, Second would get $25,000 of that amount, but the church asked to receive $50,000 owing to its relationship with William Jewell. That request was eventually accepted. Asking the HMB for $15,000 remained intact. In December, the church approved sending the pastor to the HMB meeting in Atlanta to personalize the appeal.
This was a huge development. The possibility of bridging the funding gap by $65,000 raised many hopes.
In January 1921, the State Mission Board met in Kansas City. Their statewide campaign was delayed to summer, acknowledging a growing challenge to raise $200,000. (Hmm.) To soften the sell to out-state churches, they encouraged 2BC to go on record supporting state funds for other towns with Baptist colleges. They quickly drafted that resolution.
At some point, it was decided Pastor Mangum should travel the state to persuade churches to give. The church agreed to cover expenses. The statewide campaign was squarely on 2BC’s shoulders.
By April, amid high hopes, the Building Committee was collecting bids for construction, electrical, heating, and plumbing. Thirteen bids were received. Again, costs averaged over $150,000. With the already mentioned funding possibilities still (or starting to become more) uncertain, the Building Committee recommended the church wait yet another year to proceed. This time, the vote was unanimous.
Our three written histories covering this period note the building cost was severely underestimated, but each has varying levels of clarity around two failed attempts over two years to get the project started. One hundred years later, that may not be important, but imagine what a blow it was to that congregation.
Another component…these delays were public. The church lot was vacant for two years. Was this an image problem for a church with widening prominence? How did they respond to the community’s quiet questions of “what’s going on?”
At the same time this was happening, a fundamentalist movement was emerging among Baptists in America. The church had become a vocal opponent of many cultural developments—fiercely opposing jazz music, movie houses, bars, and other entertainments? In fact, Pastor Mangum spoke at City Council meetings against a proposed movie house on the Square.
Could the church’s public posture on cultural issues be connected to the building delays and its visibility or an effort to hold onto influence and reestablish any perceived loss of local and regional prominence?
It’s too hard to say. We’ll never really know, but two things became clear in this two-year period: 1) a definitive commitment to a larger building for a larger vision, and 2) they wouldn’t assume financial risk to achieve that vision.
Here is a key characteristic of Second Baptist Church still intact 100 years later—planning for the future with a pragmatic approach. Dreaming realistically.
The next installment takes us into the summer of 1922 when funding is secured, and construction finally begins.