The Future of Church Facilities

I’d be interested in hearing some insight from those who are pastors here…we are in the throes of considering building and how to raise funds. We are a small congregation in a small western town…our “cafegymnatorium” has health issues…a crumbling foundation for one. The facility is 35 yrs old.

A real estate agent asked me why people would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a “house” that they lived in a couple of days a week.

This is a truly interesting piece.
Having grown up in a Lutheran church where the historic building with a German-imported pipe organ was considered nearly sacred, I have never quite understood the fascination with debt-driven building programs which is often held dear by Baptists and Fundamentalists. I guess it came out of the church-growth craze which impacted them so strongly in the ’70s and ’80s.
Somehow, the first time a church has to set out extra chairs people get the fever to talk about a new building program. I have seen this happen in three different churches where, in each situation, it was nigh unto laughable!
Interestingly, the real mega-churches (like Coral Ridge Presbyterian, Grace Community with John MacArthur, etc.) seem to follow more along the lines of the old mainline way of thinking — they build their one grand structure and then use it for all time, adding services and setting out chairs as needed.
Folding chairs can be folded up and stacked away; extra services can be canceled. But once ground is broken and the mortgage is signed, the debt is owed…even if the crowds find something else more exciting by the next Sunday.

Diane,

I am not currently a pastor, but have pastored two small churches in two small towns, each with very different types of building situations.
You have not given enough information for me to draw any conclusions, and certainly there are many creative possibilities and many variables.
It is amazing, though, how nicely a clean, bright multi-purpose type space can be transformed for use in worship with some nice modern, padded chairs, some nice pulpit furniture, a good PowerPoint set-up and some good musical instruments. And all of that can be folded up and put away in a matter of minutes so the space can be used for something else.

Thirty-five years doesn’t sound very old for your building. Was it misbuilt? Is it a beautiful sanctuary or a sterile ’70s “gymnatorium”?

As a Dave Ramsey-ite, I would counsel your church to avoid debt — especially a small church in a small western town. A great book on the subject is “The Debt-Free Church” (www.amazon.com/Debt-Free-Church-Experiencing-Financial-Ministry/dp/0802…).

When I accepted the pastorate at my current location more than a decade ago, I “inherited” a huge building that was way larger than what our congregation size needed. Worse, it was very much run down. It has been the proverbial tail wagging the dog in finances (mortgage, repairs, improvements, and utilities). With it we house 3 “congregations” (English, Spanish, and Deaf groups), but it has been costly in time, effort, money, and focus. When I first arrived, it literally took over 90% of our small congregation’s budget (let’s just say not every congregation makes wise decisions regarding building and finances).

For a short time, I was a part of a small new work that met in an apartment complex common area. We had to arrange and set up, but it was amazingly inexpensive and freeing in every way. No shoveling (we’re in Iowa…), no maintenance, no meetings on repairs, no workdays. It was a blessing.

At the same time, our building now is wonderfully up-to-date. Even though we’ve decided to move out of our huge auditorium (before remodeling, it would have probably held 400+ with the balcony utilized) into another common, more cozy large room to proactively save time and money (our heat bill in the coldest month of this year was $2500, which is normal). That is very expensive, but at the same time, our 3 groups could not rent facilities for what we pay corporately.

I hate buildings, but yet I know they do provide the ability, as someone suggested, on regular meeting ability. However, it is sad that many church buildings (especially ours, since all of our pastors work full-time jobs in addition to our pastoring duties) sit empty most of the time. I often wonder, with our modern technologies especially, why Bible colleges, mission boards, etc. do not seek to utilize such facility resources rather than building their own expensive facility empires. (I remember one mission board needing $300,000 just to RE-DO their roof!) I do think that many “agencies” and churches do spend way too much on facilities and not nearly enough promoting actual ministry. You can gain quite a following by building a building (or sending someone to a far country to do the same thing and calling it “missions”).

If I were to start a new work, whatever facility we would eventually pursue would definitely be a “cafegymnatorium” that could be used in multiple ways.

[Hi, Paul!]

I hope I didn’t come across as meaning that churches don’t need a place of their own. It’s just that I’ve been in churches that are in debt for facilities that are an architectural cross between shopping malls, funeral homes and fitness centers. Utilitarian is a good word. Build something that meets your needs and reflects your priorities.

Avoid debt that puts pressure on the church.

Avoid the “Field of Dreams” mentality.

Hi Kevin!

I will piggyback on what you said, but take it in a little different twist.

When I pastored in small-town Iowa, we had easily the nicest church building in town, and in an ideal location. The building was comfortable and beautiful, and could easily accommodate a congregation of 200+ people with one morning service. I had a beautiful office with a stained glass window.

The problem — we had about 25 people on most Sunday mornings.

We attracted a steady stream of visitors, many of whom were probably drawn to our facility based on outward appearance. When they got inside, however, what we were doing looked all the teensier against the backdrop of our building.

Also, Kevin, interesting you would mention the idea of a mission board sharing space in a church. I know of one mission board which had just such an idea, but couldn’t find a church to let them in. And they are in a part of the country which has been called “the New Jerusalem”!!

I will read more posts here with interest, but this will probably be my last. I have to lead a congregation in re-tracing the steps of the Pilgrims tomorrow morning :)

[Paul J. Scharf]
We attracted a steady stream of visitors, many of whom were probably drawn to our facility based on outward appearance. When they got inside, however, what we were doing looked all the teensier against the backdrop of our building.

That is a major reason for our move to our “Chapel” room. Even when we had over 100 in attendance, we looked “teensy” to visitors, I’m sure. We are together in the Chapel, and it is more warm and friendly just for that reason alone.

Most parachurch groups like to be that - alongside rather than part of a church. I am glad for the mission board that desired to be housed in existing buildings. May their tribe increase.

[I’m picturing Paul in a Pilgrim’s hat…]

Personally, I’d love to see the day return when believers build places of worship that are meaningfully beautiful. That is, I’d like like to see us escape from utilitarian architecture. Back in the day, gothic arches looked like they did because the builders wanted to say something about God and about what we are trying to do when we gather to worship. (True, a bunch were financed by selling indulgences, but that’s a separate problem)
Maybe I’m in a dream world, but I’d find it refreshing to see a church go for something almost intentionally “impractical.”

But I’m also enough of realist to know that if our church needed to build, we would probably end up in something steel w/a facade! Oh well.
One thing we really could get right though is interior acoustics. If the “auditorium” is really a “sanctuary” and a place we intend the voices of God’s people to be heard blending (as opposed to hearing a stage performance), we should ditch all that carpet and go for hardwood flooring (if that’s too expensive, there’s always concrete). I’m just constantly saddened to go to events at larger churches where the singing could truly be phenomenal but they’ve guaranteed most of the voices will be absorbed into the surrounding surfaces rather than reverberating. Crying shame. The sanctuary should naturally amplify the voices of gathered singers and funnel the sound (symbolically) upward. Do we believe in a ‘sacrifice of praise’ or not?
(… yes, I like cathedrals!)

Aaron, I agree with your sentiment. I do love buildings which are built to reflect and accommodate the worship of God, and are well-used to that end.

I also think, though, that there are a couple different good ways to go about a church building project in the 21st century (my point in post #5).

In post #3, I am really arguing similarly to your post here, but from a different vantage point. I see some Baptist buildings as being examples of the worst of all worlds. They get into a building project for reasons which are marginal at best, then build the theological equivalent of old Three Rivers Stadium or the Metrodome.

I see the model of both the old-fashioned traditional mainline church and many successful mega-churches being something quite different than this. Maybe there is a connection — like, maybe those conservative old Protestants were not so dumb after all…:)

(…yes, I like having multiple morning services!)

Utilitarian is the word for the frugal. Aesthetically, I’m with Aaron. I like churches that look like churches. BTW Aaron, if you’d like to but a cathedral, the Roman Catholic Diocese in Maine has closed a couple or 3 great edifices in Lewiston, Maine. A great chance for a novel church plant.

Aaron, I understand your sentiment, and I too love beautiful buildings and acoustics. It just seems that such is not our calling nor Biblical example. Even the Temple was not used in such a way.

It may be that we are intended for smaller groups. But also most believers in history have not had what you describe. That does not make it wrong, but maybe it is misplaced. Maybe you are just desiring what we will fully enjoy on the New Earth and in the New Jerusalem. [Paul can attend any service he chooses.];>D

By the way, I remember Chuck Swindoll presenting the case for the extravagant. It was an interesting presentation of the woman anointing Christ’s feet with the perfume that was extremely valuable, and He approved of doing so instead of yielding to Judas’ “concerns” about the poor.

[Ron Bean] A real estate agent asked me why people would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a “house” that they lived in a couple of days a week.

This real estate agent has probably never been deeply active in a church that is active! He probably thinks of “church” as only a Sunday morning service. Once you factor in things like AWANA, banquets, youth activities, and a possibility of so many community and ministry related things (we loan our facilities to home school events, tutoring, a small string orchestra, a children’s music class, etc., etc.).

For too many churches, the question might be valid. But for active ministries, the real estate agent needs to stick to real estate.

There is a helpful book out there written by a Christian architect called, When NOT to Build.” It is quite REASONABLE. Paul’s comments about keeping an old building are right on the money— if you have a “Lutheran Size” building. If space becomes a serious issue — or if the facility is simply inadequate (I once pastored a church in a storefront building), then building can be a good idea. If the issue is not facility space for ministry (Sunday School, AWANA, etc.), but for the main service, going to multiple services is the way to go. The book cited above claims you can minister to about 3 times your seating capacity through multiple services.

[Kevin Subra] It just seems that such is not our calling nor Biblical example. Even the Temple was not used in such a way.

I’m not so sure. It’s evident that much of the congregational singing (or maybe chanting, but nothing like the gregorian we associate w/that word) would have occurred outside on the way to worship, but David’s Levitical singers would have sung praises on the temple grounds… and the early church sang praises in “Solomon’s portico.” So, it’s true the architecture is much more open in that part of the world and the lines are blurred between in doors and out of doors, but the activity of singing in a beautiful—even grand—setting is not a medieval invention.