By Robin G. Jordan
Mistake #4. Using poor judgment in purchasing, constructing, or renting a building. What I have listed as Mistake #4 covers several different mistakes that new churches make when they purchase, construct, or rent a building.
As a new congregation grows, there will be increasing pressure from within the congregation, particularly from members of the congregation who associate a church with a building, to move into a building of its own. There will often be accompanying pressure not just to move into a building of its own but into a particular kind of church building. If these pressures are not resisted, they can lead to all kinds of problems. They can lead to the premature death of the new congregation.
Anglicans, perhaps more than other Christians, suffer from a “If you build it, they will come” mentality. They are often wedded to a particular ambiance and that ambiance in turn is wedded to a particular kind of church building. I have served on the building committee of an Episcopal mission and I am speaking based on experience as well as extensive reading of the literature on the subject.
There is not an uncommon belief that if a new congregation purchases or constructs the right kind of building, it will attract more people. Some new congregations will experience a brief growth spurt after they purchase or construct a new building and this growth spurt reinforce this belief. But in the long-term their purchase or construction of a building will not have the effect on their growth that they anticipated. It can leave them saddled with a heavy debt load.
For fifteen years I was the senior lay reader of an Episcopal church whose vicar, later rector suffered from what has been described as an “edifice complex,” a condition that afflicts Episcopal priests who see their legacy in terms of the number of buildings that a church constructs during their pastorate. In his particular case this penchant triggered a church split and six years later resulted in the parish becoming a mission again due to its heavy debt load and stagnant growth.
This turn of events might have been avoided had the rector not stubbornly opposed the formation of a long-range planning committee to develop a strategic plan for the parish and had gone along with a moratorium on any further borrowing for construction projections until the church’s debt load had been reduced. Like the other churches of the diocese, the parish was negatively affected by the events of 2003.
During the six years after the church split the rector converted the parish’s multiple purpose building into a permanent sanctuary, or worship center, and embarked on a third construction project—the erection of a parish hall. The conversion of the multiple purpose building and the construction of a parish hall, while increasing the debt load of the parish, had no effect on its average Sunday attendance. When the parish became a mission again, he resigned and moved on.
For some new congregations the temptation to purchase or construct a building at a early stage in the life of the congregation will prove irresistible. They borrow money and invest in a building mistakenly believing that it will attract new members and enable them to quickly pay off the loan. They will take upon themselves a debt load that is too much for them at that particular stage. They will end up struggling to pay off the loan, focusing their energies on debt reduction rather than mission and ministry. This shift of focus will impair their growth, making reducing their debt even more difficult. They may become trapped in a vicious cycle.
St. Andrew’s Anglican Church, Easton, Maryland, was one such a church. It had a small congregation—thirty-five members—and was meeting in a rented storefront. Its members fell in love with a red brick Gothic revival chapel. It matched perfectly their idea of a church. St. Andrew’s borrowed heavily to buy the chapel. When St. Andrew’s moved into the chapel it did not grow like its members had anticipated. St. Andrew’s was eventually unable to keep up its loan payments and the bank foreclosed on the chapel. This story is not an uncommon one.
The members of St. Andrew’s used poor judgment in purchasing the chapel. They were not a large enough congregation to take on the debt load that they did. They made a couple of erroneous assumption about the building. They assumed that because they liked that particular style of architecture, other people would like it. They also assumed that the building itself would attract new members to St. Andrew’s.
Their story suggests that several other factors contributed to their unwise decision. They did not heed Jesus’ advice to count the cost. As Jesus pointed out, a builder does not embark on a building project until he has ascertained that he has enough materials to complete the project.
They put their preferences first. They gave priority to ecclesial praxis over missional engagement—something Continuing Anglicans, Episcopalians, and former-Episcopalians are especially prone to do. They allowed their particular concept of an ideal church building to cloud their judgment.
They assumed that more Episcopalians would be leaving the Episcopal Church in their area and would be seeking a new church home. Consequently they targeted disaffected Episcopalians rather than the larger unchurched population of the area. Unaffiliated and disaffected Episcopalians do not form a large segment of the population in most areas.
One thing that I have not been able to ascertain from online accounts of what happened is the location of the chapel, its history, and the chapel’s location relation to where the members of St. Andrew’s lived. While a building may be ideal from the point of view of those buying it, its location may not. As with a retail store, the success of a church depends in large part upon its location as well as the demand for the product it is selling.
Knowing the history of the building can provide valuable insights into whether its location is a good one for a traditional Anglican church (or for any kind of Anglican church as far as that goes). What happened to the previous congregation that occupied the building? Did it outgrow the building and relocate? Did the demographics of the community or neighborhood change? Was the congregation forced to disband? Why? Was the congregation similar in composition, style of worship, approach to ministry, and the like to the congregation considering purchasing it.
If a building is located in a community or neighborhood with which the latter has few if any connections, then it is far from an ideal location for that congregation. There are exceptions. One of them is when a church planting team deliberately moves into a community or neighborhood to start a new congregation targeted at the residents of that community or neighborhood.
Too often new congregations, however, will relocate to a community or neighborhood simply because the community or neighborhood has a vacant church building that it can purchase. The small Continuing Anglican church in which I am presently involved did. It moved to its present location because an Assembly of God’s congregation had outgrown its building and put the building on the market. The building was within walking distance of its pastor's home. He was only member of the congregation that lived in the community (and was only with the congregation for two years). The other members lived in communities scattered around the region. Some communities were a hour’s drive from where the building was located.
The church has not flourished at that location. It has no connections with the community. Very few people in the community are aware of the church’s existence in the community. If the church disappeared overnight, the only people who would miss it would be the utility companies, the man who cuts the grass, the woman who cleans the building, and the prenatal and maternity care clinic to which the church gives an annual donation.
The congregation at one point considered relocating to the community where most of its members lived but decided against relocating since it would mean giving up the building. The congregation, which has always been small, has shrunk since that time as members have died, moved away, or begun attending a church in their community. Paying the operating expenses of the church, insuring the building and making needed repairs are placing a heavy demand on the remaining members.
Among the dangers of purchasing a vacant church building is not only the unsuitability of the location but also the unanticipated cost of refurbishing the building. The congregation may have done an inadequate assessment of the cost of repairing the building before they purchased it. The repair of an old building can be a bottomless pit into which a new congregation pours its limited financial resources. It is possible to pay more to repair a building than to buy it.
On the other hand, the high cost of refurbishing a building may be the result of the congregation choosing to renovate and redecorate the building in a particular style. For example, members of the congregation may insist upon having arched top windows because “real churches have arched top windows.” However, the cost of arch top windows is significantly higher than that of rectangular windows. The cost of their installation is also significantly higher. They may insist upon having stained glass window panes instead of clear glass panes because “real churches have stained glass windows.” The cost of stained glass is significantly higher than clear glass. Some members of the congregation may go as far as threatening to leave if their demands are not met.
In purchasing a building a congregation may overlook such factors as availability of parking or accessibility to public transportation. In North America adequate parking space for members of the congregation and visitors is essential if a new congregation is going to grow. Limited parking space will place a cap on its growth.
St. Michael’s Episcopal Church, Mandeville, Louisiana, when it was new mission, originally held its services in the club house of a subdivision’s tennis club. However, it was forced to move when the residents of the subdivision living near the club house complained that those attending its services were parking in front of their houses. St. Michael’s then rented space in a office building as a meeting place and used the office building’s parking lot. When it outgrew that space, it rented a storefront on Monroe Street. It eventually rented the entire building, including an upstairs apartment, which served as a church office. It leased additional parking space from Chitter’s Garage which was a short walking distance from the building. When it lost its lease to the St. Tammany Parish School Board, it met in the Old Gymnasium, which was across the street, until it moved into the multipurpose building that the congregation had built on the property the diocese had purchased for the mission.
When we planned the building, we underestimated the amount of parking space that we would need. We did not expect St. Michael’s to experience the rapid growth that it did. At one point we were the fastest growing Episcopal church in the diocese. We quickly outgrew the available parking space.
St. Michael’s would launch a third service on Sunday morning. The rector saw the third service as a temporary solution to the congested parking lot. He pushed for the construction of a larger sanctuary, or worship center. The vestry wanted to use the third service to reach a larger segment of the community’s population, employing a different style of worship and music from the other two services. While it was not opposed to the construction of a larger sanctuary, it believed that the church should postpones such an ambitious project until had reduced the parish’s heavy debt load from the two previous building projects—the multipurpose building and a Christian education center/preschool. It proposed the formation of a long-range planning committee to develop a strategic plan for St. Michael’s.
The rector, however, opposed the formation of such a committee. The congregations would become divided over these two visions for the church’s future and the rector’s leadership style. The church hired a consultant at the insistence of the bishop. His conclusion was that the rector and the vestry needed training in conflict resolution and the rector needed training in leading a large church. The church had grown but he had not grown with it.
Rather than implementing the consultant’s recommendations, the vestry demanded the resignation of the rector. The rector’s supporters packed the vestry meeting and the rector, bolstered by their presence, was defiant. In response to his refusal to resign, the vestry resigned en masse and walked out of the meeting.
Having won what he perceived as a power struggle with the vestry, the rector became more intractable. He made a number of decisions that led to the exodus of a large part of the original core of the congregation—about a third of the church’s member households and its most able leaders. The rector tried to compensate for their departure by making the church more attractive to Anglo-Catholic and liberal Episcopalians but this strategy failed.
I included this story because it shows how decisions made early in the life of a new congregation can affect that congregation later on. From what I gather the rector and vestry did not consider the options of hiring a second pastor and expanding the parking lot. The multipurpose building was set back from the street and a temporary gravel parking lot could have been placed in front of the building and paved over later on. It would have ruined the view of the building from the street but people were not attending the church because of this view. Some judicious landscaping could have compensated for the ruined view. Both options would have permitted the congregation to grow to the point where it could have embarked on a third building project without straining its financial resources.
A number of organizations use long-range planning committees to establish their long range goals; develop a strategic plan; to annually review the strategic plan; to evaluate what actions have been taken and what actions need to be ongoing; to ensure the alignment of organizational goals with the strategic plan; and to develop new actions, when appropriate, to further the organization’s goals. The strategic plan is presented to the organization’s board for approval at regular intervals, typically annually. I have never understood the rector’s resistance to the idea. St. Michael’s itself had been the long-range goal of the strategic plan that the long-range planning committee of Christ Episcopal Church, Covington developed for that parish. It included launching a new church, a Christian day school, and a retirement community-assisted living facility. Christ Church accomplished all three goals.
In communities or neighborhoods in which most people walk, ride bicycles, or rely on public transportation (buses, trams, and subways—the Tube, Metro, etc.) such as in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and other European countries, the building will need to be within reasonable walking distance of where the congregation’s ministry target group lives or close to a convenient public transportation route.
These factors are also critical when renting a building or space in a building or sharing a church building with another congregation. Whenever possible the meeting place of a new congregation should be within close proximity of where its ministry target group lives.
New congregations also use poor judgment in constructing their first building. The most common mistake is to embark on a building project prematurely when the new congregation is not large enough to take on the debt load from such a project. The congregation cannot keep up the loan payments and the bank forecloses on the building. Church foreclosures are more common than one might imagine. Typically a church undertakes an ambitious building project, borrows heavily, and then is unable to repay the loan.
Due to fluctuating land prices and changing zone restrictions a new congregation may be tempted to purchase property for a future building site at an early stage. In some cases the judicatory may purchase the property for the new congregation, thereby establishing an interest in the property. In both cases the buyer, the new congregation or the judicatory, may be tempted to purchase property at a less than desirable location for a church building because the property is cheap and the zoning is favorable to churches.
A desirable location for a church building is one that it has high visibility. It is located on major artery running in and out of a community or on a well-trafficked street of a neighborhood. It is in close proximity to where the new congregation’s ministry target group lives or easily accessible to that ministry target group.
There is a caveat. In the 1950s and later a number of church buildings were constructed in subdivisions, or housing estates, on the theory that the residents of the subdivision would attend the church nearest to them. St. Martin-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church, Mayfield, Kentucky was one such church. The vacant building is located in a subdivision at the end of a cul-de-sac which only can be reached by two or more connecting streets from the closest major artery. The church had no visibility. To make matters worse the subdivision’s residents chose not to attend the church nearest to them. The subdivision grew but St. Martin’s did not grew with it. Trinity Episcopal Church, Fulton, Kentucky is another such church. It was relocated to a growing subdivision on the outskirts of town on the same theory. It lacks visibility. It is located on a street that runs parallel to a major artery. Most of the members of its congregation do not live in the subdivision. The subdivision did not grow as had been anticipated. Down the street from Trinity is a growing Black neighborhood. Trinity’s congregation is largely white.
The buyer may underestimate the amount of property that the new congregation needs. Purchasing too much property is not so much of a problem as buying insufficient property, except for the financial burden that it places on a new congregation. However, a new congregation may be tempted to sell off some of the property to repay the loan, only to discover that it no longer has enough property for its needs.
Once a new congregation or the judicatory purchases property for a building, the new congregation will experience pressure to construct a building. This pressure usually comes from within the congregation but it may sometimes come from the judicatory. When the pressure comes from within the congregation, it may be not to just construct a building but to erect a particular kind of building—rose windows, gothic arches, cloistered walks, and that sort of thing. When it comes time to construct the building, if those who are pressing for a particular kind of building gain the upper hand, the building will cost far more than if a more functional design was adopted.
A good rule is that form should give way to function. Functional buildings are far less expensive to construct than fancy ones. They are also more practical. Clean, plain lines can be far more attractive than ornate ones. Functional buildings are also easier to sell if a church outgrows its building.
When St. Michael’s built its first building, it constructed a modest-sized multiple purpose building. One half of the building was a large room which served as worship, fellowship, and adult Christian education space. The other half of the building consisted of a kitchen, a nursery, three classrooms, two restrooms, and two offices—the pastor’s office and an outer office.
The building plan had two phases. The first phase was the construction of a multipurpose building and the second phase was the construction of a Christian education building/preschool. The two buildings would be linked by a covered sidewalk.
As I previously noted, we underestimated how fast the church would grow and how much parking space it would need. A baseball field was included in the plan. However, the area had plenty of baseball fields and a shortage of soccer fields. What was supposed to have been a base ball field became a soccer field.
The preschool and the soccer field were a part of the church’s outreach strategy. The large room in the multipurpose building was made available to community groups and organizations for meetings. Among the community groups and organizations that took advantage of its availability were a Cub Scout Pack and a Boy Scout Troop. The large room was also available for bridal showers, wedding receptions, and family re-unions.
The trend today is away from large sanctuaries, or worship centers, to more modest-sized buildings and multiple services. One Baptist congregation in Biloxi, Mississippi, built a huge “big box” church building after Hurricane Katrina. The building rivals a typical Walmart in size. But only a handful of cars can be seen parked outside of the building on a Sunday. The congregation did not grow as its members had expected it to. This has happened elsewhere.
More and more new congregations are choosing not to purchase or construct a building but to rent space in a building or an entire building. As they grow, they can move to a larger facility. The considerations in renting space in a building or an entire building are the same as in purchasing or constructing a building—location, visibility, parking space, accessibility, and affordability.
Only after meeting in rented facilities on the campus of Murray State University for twelve years has the Journey Church here in Murray, Kentucky decided to purchase land and build on it. The Journey Church will be building a conference center that doubles as a worship center. The building will serve as a venue for conferences and other large gatherings. It has already hosted two Global Leadership Summit events for pastors ministering in the region.
The Journey has moved only once since it launched its first service of public service in the university’s Curris Center’s ballroom. It outgrew the available space in that center and moved to the CFSB Center, the university’s indoor sports arena. The only drawback to meeting on the university’s campus was that the university closed during the Christmas break and the summer break. Until it negotiated a different lease arrangement with the university, it temporarily relocated to the Baptist Campus Ministry building during these breaks. On occasion it has also used Curris Center’s theater and the Lovett Auditorium due to scheduling conflicts.
All of these locations placed the Journey Church in close proximity to its original ministry target group—the university’s student body. During the twelve years of its existence the Journey Church has become less of a campus church and more of a community church, attracting a growing number of married couples with young or teenage children. Moving off campus into the community is a logical step for it to take.
No comments:
Post a Comment