Building a Larger Building, or Planting a New Congregation
Planting
Following his opening prayer, the chairperson began the meeting pointedly at 7:00pm. “We have one issue to discuss tonight as we attempt to determine future strategies to continue the growth of Seaside Community Church. Should we build a larger facility or initiate a satellite congregation in the growing community 30 minutes down the road?”
Bob began, “I see no other option. We must build a larger facility. Our current facility is bursting at the seams. It is starting to show its age. We have no room for growth in our children’s programs. We already are offering a Saturday evening and two Sunday morning worship options. And here’s the truth, we have become a regional ministry. People don’t mind driving to get to Seaside because it’s the type of environment that is meaningful to them and their family. God has blessed us at Seaside and I believe he’s calling us to step out in faith and expand our facility to meet growing needs.”
Curtis jumped in, “I agree. There is something about a large church and the multitude of services and programs that it can offer that is attractive to people in our day. They want specialized ministries. They appreciate options for worship services. They expect excellence and great music and programs. Larger churches are able to provide what start-ups can’t. In fact the last thing we need in our area is another struggling little church. They’re all over the place!”
Barb couldn’t hold back, “Respectfully, I’m not sure I’m convinced. Two reasons come to mind. Number one: All of the church growth studies show that starting new congregations is by far the most effective means of evangelism. Established churches simply tend to plateau. Perhaps we can be in the minority but the majority of churches experience that. Perhaps we would be wiser to be proactive and consider alternatives before being forced to deal with issues of stagnancy. Secondly, I understand that many people are willing to drive to come to Seaside and that’s a wonderful reality. But most people, if given the opportunity, would rather go to church in their own community. In fact can you imagine how difficult it is for a lot of our folks to invite their neighbour to church and then say, “It’s only a 30 minute drive.” Can you imagine what some folks would think? “I don’t even go to church! Why would I drive for an hour! Isn’t there a church in this community?”
Chester added, “I agree with that. I live 25 minutes from Seaside and I find it very difficult to invite my neighbors even though for 3 years now I have been developing a relationship with them. They simply can’t understand why I drive “so far” to Seaside.”
Beyond that, Susan injected, I know when new folks come to Seaside they often think things work so well and everything is done so well that there is no need for them. I felt that when I came. But a new church or a satellite congregation needs every person that breathes to be serving. Perhaps it is a far more effective model to get people involved and to use all of the spiritual gifts that exist in this church.”
Hugh had spent most of the meeting pondering. Finally he leaped in, “My question surrounds wise stewardship and use of resources. Is the wisest decision to keep our ministry centralized and based in one location? Build larger? Maintain one plant? But I have to wonder if the wisest decision is that huge outlay of capital expenditure that potentially could be more usefully served in a brand new community.
Susan continued again, “I’m in complete agreement that we must secure a strong base and that Seaside’s foundation must remain strong. In fact it may be true that some money needs to be invested into upgrading our current facility. Whether we have one campus or two or ten, the roots must be strong or the branches will weaken. I agree with that. But I’m intrigued that there could be a new model that could enable both to occur.
Bob countered, “I’m open to discussion but it seems high risk to me. We struggle to get enough volunteers now. Is it possible to think we can do both and still fill all of the necessary needs. And what about the risk of not knowing who might leave! Seaside’s current ministry could be desperately damaged if we had a huge exodus.
The chairperson jumped in as the conversation paused, “Wow! Great discussion! There are a pile of issues and considerations that we will need to address. I’m convinced that the future for Seaside is an exciting one and I’m thrilled to hear all of your dreams and the way in which you are all thinking so critically about the next steps we must take. Beyond that I appreciate the way in which you expressed your feelings truthfully and yet with love and respect for each other. That will be critical for us to model as we continue these discussions and invite the congregation to dream with us. BUT … it’s almost 11:00pm and we need to all go home. Susan can you close us in prayer and ask God to continue to guide these critical discussions.
Response
In reading Dean’s thoughts regarding expanding facilities to meet strategic needs in our communities there is very little with which I would disagree. I would however highlight a few cautions.
- Caution: #1: The great majority of churches that decide to expand their base usually default toward facility enlargement. While that may be the best option it is not necessarily so. Other creative options may be more effective (and even less costly) in achieving our mission. Such examples could be renovating alternative facilities or starting another site. Defaulting toward a building project could cause a church to miss another creative alternative that may in fact be more effective in impacting the emerging generation. Be careful not to allow over-excitement for a new facility to cause you make unwise choices.
- Caution #2: New buildings ATTRACT people … they will not KEEP people. A new facility can create some buzz and increased traffic. However if it is “second verse same as the first” and if nothing has changed to make the environment more attractive and compelling, people will leave as fast as they came.
- Caution #3: New buildings don’t create growth patterns. They simply facilitate more effectively the growth that is occurring. Churches that engage in a building project to create buzz and initiate a pattern of growth will eventually become a victim of Caution #2.
- Caution #4: Be careful to understand your context. Urban realities for example are different than rural realities. In fact alternative facility availability maybe almost non-existent in certain rural areas. While in urban areas it may be the most creative, attractive and financially responsible option.
Finally I would simply push back a little on a couple of Dean’s comments.
“Expectations rise to new levels once a larger facility has been completed. The congregation will be expecting higher performance standards for the entire leadership team.” We did not experience that in our environment. There was no increased pressure on staff. As well, we did not experience a push toward higher standards with the people in our congregation. That level of excellence simply has to be a part of the church’s DNA. Facilities don’t create that (at least in our story).
“Transitioning to a new building will facilitate the necessary staff changes as some team members may not be adequately equipped or gifted to meet those expectations.” That may be true. It may become the new reality that some staff members are unable now to rise to the next level. However it may also create all kinds of pain and ugliness, because all too often the staff member is the only one that doesn’t recognize the new reality and his inability to meet it.
“Moving to a new and larger facility will also ease the introduction of many changes in ministry style, programs and they way we reach out of the building to engage the world around us.” I think this is an assumption and a “hope” but not necessarily a reality. I don’t think it is right to assume that a new facility will also initiate attitude change in the way people view church, ministry or their involvement. Again I’m convinced that is more about creating that attitude as part of the church’s DNA.
Building
This is an exciting time in the life of our Convention. Several new strategies reflect an attempt by Atlantic Baptists to be more effective in how we reach out to our friends, neighbors and surrounding communities. One of those strategies is to build new and larger structures that more adequately meet the needs for innovative worship and ministry. Another progressive method is to plant new churches or satellite congregations.
I have been asked to comment on the benefits of building a larger building. Obviously every situation is different. Rather than take a "knee-jerk" reaction to the subject we should first ask "what is the most effective way we can reach our community and the region around us."
The ultimate goal is, of course, to do God's will but discerning it on an individual or congregational level is much more difficult. We are too easily blinded by our own personal motivations. Too many projects have been driven by the needs of the church leaders rather than by the needs of the community they serve. There is always the danger of "spiritualizing" what we want. More often than not, it is a lack of motivation that controls the agenda for change.
Most congregations would rather live with the excitement of "over-capacity" rather than commit to the hard work of planning and financially supporting a new structure. Little thought is given to the visitor, struggling to find a place to park or navigating their way through a complex of corridors in a dark and rambling old building.
It is hard work to plan a new building! It generally takes 2 - 4 years of continuous effort to achieve that goal. Personally, I would have preferred not to have started down that road but the frustrations of working in a 96 year old building have taken their toll on volunteers and ministry staff. Overcrowding, design limitations, the lack of storage space, and the constant need of repairs absorb a needless amount of precious energy and resources.
In opting for a larger structure we have to be driven by more than frustrations. Our purpose for doing so must be very clear. The struggle will not be easy and transitioning a congregation from an older historic building will most certainly create tensions and potential conflicts. The very process of building a new facility forces a congregation to rethink their purpose for existence." The first questions are faith questions, church life questions, mission questions, purpose questions - not architectural questions." (H. Davis Byrd) Building a new building then is not only a catalyst in the clarification of our goals but it can also expose the weaknesses in our vision and strategy, and our responses may actually reveal a insipid commitment and a tenuous faith.
There is an excitement and anticipation that comes with the beginnings of a move to a new building that is felt throughout the congregation. However, it does not stop there. There is also an excitement that is generated by building a new facility that is felt in the community as well as the church. It can convey that the members of this congregation are deeply committed to their beliefs and are willing to make sacrifices to achieve their goals. As a result, many questions will be asked by people in the community, affording an opportunity to engage them in a sensitive dialogue.
If the design and planning have been wisely and prayerfully considered, then opting for a larger facility will provide the congregation with a more effective tool for ministry. I believe if the present building has been maximized through usage and thoughtful renovations, then the construction of a new facility can be an act of good stewardship. The continued cost of operating an older, less efficient facility or the upkeep of several smaller ones may drain resources that could be spent on outreach and other ministries.
A larger building has the potential to increase the opportunities for excellence in ministry. The assumption being that opting for a larger facility means an intention to grow to the point where the members of multiple staff team would have areas of specialized ministry skills. This can be a great benefit for smaller churches by providing them with opportunities for training and community celebration. There have been several examples of this throughout our Convention.
A building cannot replace intentional outreach, inadequate staffing, or the under-utilization of facilities for growth. It can, however, expose the changes that need to be made to the ministry plan and to the leadership team. Expectations rise to new levels once a larger facility has been completed. The congregation will be expecting higher performance standards for the entire leadership team. The transitioning to a new building will facilitate the necessary staff changes as some team members may not be adequately equipped or gifted to meet those expectations. Moving to a new and larger facility will also ease the introduction of many changes in ministry style, programs and they way we reach out of the building to engage the world around us. Buildings do not minister, only people minister, but a new and larger building will provide those people with a more effective tool for ministry.
Response
Atlantic Canada is blessed with an abundance of Baptist Churches which were originally constructed within an accessible walking distance of its members. Ironically, local congregations still cling to these structures while sending their children to consolidated schools, accessing larger hospitals, and shopping at regional malls.
Despite the inconvenience of travel, most people would agree that the resulting training opportunities, the quality of care and the variety of choice will insure the continuance of this change. The problem is not usually with the drive. Many people are quite willing to drive a considerable distance to attend a church where there is a healthy spiritual presence, an attitude of hope and optimism, and a strong sense of mission.
Building a larger facility is costly but it is also costly to maintain several satellite buildings and in some cases, the actual construction of a smaller worship/gathering center.
I believe a much wiser use of resources would be to concentrate on the development of area small groups or house churches. If the smaller church is "a far more effective model to get people involved" then a small house group should be the ideal setting.
Establishing a church plant is not as complex as maintaining a satellite church connection. This requires the presence of a strong team to maintain that sense of connectedness through shared resources and staff. A church needs to reach an optimum size in order to have the energy, resources and competency to initiate and maintain one or more satellite connections. It would be premature to begin such an initiative without first building a solid foundation to launch from. No matter what we do, whether it is building or launching satellites we must always be wary of our motives. In the past too much attention has been given to building kingdoms and not The Kingdom.
