I call it “the aftermath.”
A church goes through an intense time of planning and fundraising to construct a new facility. Then the members participate in a groundbreaking service. Finally, the building is constructed in the midst of great hope and anticipation.
Then the bottom falls out.
The great hope that accompanied the building of the facility becomes a great despair. The church realizes the building is far more than they need, that the expenditures were far greater than they should have been, and that alternative and smaller plans were wrongly rejected.
The church built too big.
And now comes the aftermath. I also call it “unintended consequences.” Here are eight of them:
- Debt becomes shackles. There are different schools of thought about churches taking on debt. Some would insist a church should remain debt-free. Another would be okay with moderate and reasonable debt. But in this case, the indebtedness is neither zero nor reasonable. It is burdensome and even debilitating.
- Morale is hit hard. The morale swing in the church is dramatic. It is one thing for a church to have low morale. It is another thing for a church to have low morale after experiencing high expectations and a great morale.
- Leaders spend too much time with a new narrative. They find themselves constantly explaining what happened, regularly defending their decisions, or falling on their swords with each new question and comment.
- Utility costs are too high and burdensome. Almost every church I have seen in this situation underestimated the costs of utilities in the new facilities. Those extra and often unexpected expenditures further cripple the church financially.
- They built it, but they didn’t come. It is not uncommon for churches that build too big to expect that growth will take care of the bigger facility. Rarely does a facility alone attract the unchurched and the nominally churched.
- The church becomes dangerously nostalgic. The members remember “the good old days” when they had smaller but more used facilities. They long for the past where debt was not such a burden. Any church that lives in the past is headed for a future that holds imminent decline and death.
- There are fewer financial resources for ministry. Most of the funds are used to pay personnel costs and the costs of the facilities, including indebtedness.
- The church has difficulty finding good successor pastors. It is not unusual for the pastor to leave, frustrated and fearful of the financial burdens of the church. It then becomes exceedingly difficult to find a good successor pastor, once the candidates see how few dollars can actually be used for ministry in the church.
Don’t build too big. Plan carefully before you do. Be careful you don’t get too zealous in the types and sizes of facilities your church will build.
You will pay dearly for your mistakes in the future.
I am the pastor of a church built during a time the church was a large congregation. The church suffered a large exodus years ago and a slow continuance of it for years before I came. We are now in the situation of being a small congregation in a big building and it is difficult at best. We just had a bid to fix our roof that is equal to our entire yearly budget.
Wow. I am praying for you and the church, Jeff.
Please Pray for me too Thom. Same scenario.
Get more roof estimates! Most roofs can be repaired and be like new….from a Christian roofer.
We actually felt it was a pretty decent estimate. It needed fixing 5 years ago. It’s a 70’s style flat roof, we do have 4 more estimates we are waiting on but I dont think we will see a major difference
Great article. Our Church is growing fast (28% two years ago, 36% last year, etc) and we’re now at about 350. Our little building is hosting three services, soon to be four, and we’re pretty crowded.
We’re looking at a getting a new facility, but since we reach poor, former addicts, etc. cost is a major inhibiting factor.
What principles should we (or any Church) use to determine what size of building to go into next?
>What principles should we (or any Church) use to determine what size of building to go into next?
This depends upon what the aspirations of the congregation are.
Skipping the theory, the evidence, supporting rational, and congregational aspirations:
* First building: 100 seats;
* Second building: 250 seats;
* Third building: 500 seats;
* Fourth building: 750 seats;
* Fifth building: 1.000 seats;
With the caveat that seats can be closed off, without making it obvious that there are closed off sections.
Designing the building so that expanding the sanctuary is easy and inexpensive is probably the cheapest way for a new congregation.
For reasons that are way too complex to go into, at the 750-800 congregants per service range, total growth will be higher, by multiplying into two or more congregations, than by increasing the size of the building.
Be aware that your four morning services, with an average of 400 people per service, or 1,600 for the morning, will not magically transform into a single service of 1,200 people. It will remain 400 people at each of the four morning services. Hence the need to be able to block off sections, until attendance warrants it.
I’d add another, though perhaps not as critical as those listed. Building too big results in the loss of the “critical mass” necessary in the worship space for an energized service.
True.
Excellent article, eight years too late but every point on the mark. Nothing worse than being locked into facilities you can’t pay off and too large for your needs.
Well said, Julie. I
Most of the eight comments dealt with cost. I do not agree on several of these points. Of course no one should build beyond the ability to support after completed. That is part of the planning stage and can easily be prevented with proper planning. I think the bigger issue is to not build a church that does not allow for growth. Cost sky rocket if you have to constantly remodel to meet needs. Congregants be come weary of and skeptical if they have to rebuild refinance do to short sited vision of church needs
Thanks, Dwight. I would be interested to know at which points you disagree and why.
Tom. I have read your eight step guide several times and I truly believe that most of what you speak of is solved with proper planning and research. If you eat to much you may get fat and unhealthy likewise if you build to much you get bad results. You must know your congagents, their needs, the area, the financial capabilities, and very important the future of technology and talent available. Why would almost all that you speak of not be resolved with proper research and planning. I guess I would conclude by saying plan to your future needs and don’t become a gluten. Don’t let fear overtake you goals.
Plan wisely for success. Tom, I read you almost on a daily basis and find great wisdom in most everything you write. I believe in this case it would have been enough to say Plan wisely and stay within budget. We are in the process of planning for a new church and I am fearful that we do not under build and pay the price for that mistake. I will take head to all the information and caution you have provided as I offer my opinion during the process. Thanks Again
I agree with the statements already posted and with Dr. Rainer’s assessment. Over the years, I have begun to change my vision for building needs and usage. First, a church building must be used and purposeful to be worth its cost. Many of the churches in our association have areas that are only used for Sunday morning Bible Study…nothing else all week. I’m beginning to believe this is just poor stewardship. A church could use it for day care (children or Sr. Adults), help groups (Celebrate recovery, Divorce Care, etc.), open it up to the community. Don’t build without a vision for using the building with purpose.
Second, once a church is “viable” – staff paid adequately, bills covered, adequate money and volunteers for ministry – and growing, why build? Why not disciple a group to begin a new church plant in another area of town or the county? Or, train and send a team to help revitalize a struggling church? How big is big enough? Are we building compounds or building the kingdom?
Either of these seem much more palatable and biblical than a building that is only used at best 9 hours a week on Sundays and Wednesdays.
Excellent points, Bob.
I totally agree. As a “younger” pastor, I have struggled with the issues of stewardship that orbit around dedicated facilities and owned properties. Usage of facilities that numbers less than 10 to 15 hours per week would seem to prohibit spending resources on erecting buildings and properties that easily price in the millions of dollars. Especially when most of our members own or rent homes that can be used for ministry/disciple-making.
I would add that this is not solely a financial or even stewardship matter, but rather one of ministry philosophy. In that I would pose this question… Why is it that we can raise millions of dollars for building projects but makes the same plea for ministry/missions (local or global) the response is often far less? Could it be that the church has misplaced priorities?
I am in a situation where my churches over 50 years old. Most of the same congregation has been there from the beginning. When they built the building it was built as a two-story building. With no handicap accessibility because of the time period it was built. So for these reasons I think it would be beneficial for my church to either build or add onto the building so that we can better use the space according to the congregation that I have.
I have seen firsthand what happens when a church “overbuilds.” In my first pastorate I inherited a fellowship hall that was larger than the church’s needs and they had definitely overextended themselves. This became a source of continual stress and anxiety on the congregation. The church already had much internal strife and division and this only exacerbated the situation. I spent three of the toughest years of my ministry in that church.
Also, I have knowledge of a congregation in my home state of Ohio that about 15-20 years ago was exploding with growth and was running around 3000 in Sunday morning worship. They built a 10 million dollar facility on new property in the community. A few years later, the pastor resigned due to moral failure. The church dwindled down to around 500 people. They came perilously close to going under, but somehow they have persevered and the church has grown to several hundred and is now recovered, but it has been a long hard road for them. They’ve been through a couple of pastors, but the current one is doing well and leading the church forward.
I walked through a Building Project at a 120 member church recently. They were able to raise, in cash, 30% of the balance needed to finish the building addition (rest is in bank and personal loans). They disregarded/deferred at least $100,000 of current and/or near-future (5 years) projects. Additionally, there is approximately $100,000 of beautiful new HVAC sitting on the roof. Figure, if you’re lucky, that may last 20 years. If you started saving NOW, and every subsequent year, for it’s replacement you’re at $5,000 per year. $5,000 represents the In-reach, Outreach, Fellowship, & Christian Ed/Discipleship budgets COMBINED. And again, the current capital projects still aren’t accounted for. So disheartening.
I wish every congregation planning on building would read this article. I wish every pastor would read this article as well. I am in a similar situation where they built to accommodate growth but before I got here they have gown down in attendance and giving…making it but there are some challenges on the horizon. I hope that pastors are recognizing the trend of less is more as far as building are concerned.
The church I currently pastor has reasonably sized facilities that are 100% paid for (a huge blessing).
But there are churches in this area (and where I lived before) that have much more building than they currently need. Many of them did need the space at one time. But these congregations are dying/declining and the cost of maintenance is increasingly becoming a strain on the budget.
When I lived in Memphis, I saw more than enough examples to prove your point (I’m not as familiar with Nashville, but I suspect they have plenty of them, too). These churches built large, fine auditoriums. Yet the communities changed and the churches didn’t change with them, and as a result these churches had only a few people worshiping in a huge auditorium. It was a depressing sight.
A trend you have pointed out that adds to this. People are going to church less. You may have 1000 regular attenders but your attendance is only 700 a week because your regular attenders are really only there 2 Sundays a month.
So if a church that size builds to accommodate 1600 there will be very few times a year they fill the space…even if they are reaching new people.
Agreed – I’m the new Pastor in a similar situation – it is difficult to turn around, but it can be an opportunity. However, the pastor must: a) stop talking about money (negatively) or asking people to give more and more, b) cut the budget to the bare (I’m the only full time – everyone else is part-part time) essentials, and c) aggressively refocus on reaching the community (we were about to close but have grown 125% over the past 2 years). When people return giving will return.
That’s encouraging news. Keep up the good work!
I am an architect. I’ve worked with many building committees over the years. A great resource church leaders should read before they contract the debilitating disease of “expansionitis euphoriatosis” is Ray Bowman’s book “When Not to Build: An Architect’s Unconventional Wisdom for the Growing Church”. Read it prayerfully and discern between the wants and needs.
Blessings as you build His church.
Thanks, Dave. I have been recommended that book for years.
Thom:
As a church building planner, I’ve read Bowman’s book a few times. There are some building committees that need it. But Bowman doesn’t understand the bottom line of the church is not interest dollars. An under equipped building for ministry is restrained, even when a reasonable financial plan could provide for additional early decades of service. But a good plan will also allow for building growth in the future if it is needed. A future building plan is a complex analysis, but not beyond the capabilitiy of an experienced team and prayer dependent leadership.
The Church where I currently serve needed to read something like this. I wish they had 10 years ago. Maybe things would be different.
They had no long range plan. No ministry goals. Little concept of reality. Weren’t thinking about serving future generations.
Spent 1.5 million dollars, 800k of which was borrowed.
Now, the building doesn’t serve current or future ministry needs. It works, but will need modification in 5 years or less. Maintenance is a nightmare.
It’s not just a matter of “Don’t overbuild or overspend”. It’s also a matter of “Have a plan before you build!”
I think we tend to shoot ourselves in the foot on a fairly frequent basis. The current topic being one of those situations. When we are bursting at the seems and logic dictates it’s time,to build a new,larger facility,I think it’s time to take a step back and consider all options.
Many churches now do multiple services on Sunday to accommodate the increased crowds,but is that what is best for everyone involved? How long before the pastor is worn out from such a load,especially if he puts in a full week preparing for those extra services along with all the other ministry responsibilities?
I fear that the worldly mantra of “bigger is better” has caused the church to misstep badly in actually doing ministry,and here’s why. Human nature being what it is,it is well known that to have a large church brings with it a certain air of success and importance to the pastor. Again, human nature,as who doesn’t want to be a success?
But what if instead of building a bigger church building,we build more churches,albeit smaller ones,that would be strategically planted where the greatest need is? This could be accomplished fairly easily by sending out teams from the “home church” to establish these new works.
This would serve several purposes. 1) It would provide a greater gospel influx,or presence into the world. 2) It would provide more ministers a place in which to minister. There are many denominations with ministers who have no regular place to minister. 3) It would eliminate the bondage of excessive debt that a new,giant structure would create.
Simply put, a greater number of smaller churches could potentially have as many members as one large mega church, while providing the benefits already mentioned. As for reaching the lost,I would think 20 churches of 150 strategically planted would do a much better job than one church of 3000 landlocked in suburbia.
Of course,for this to happen one very large roadblock would have to be removed. Our ego.
Should growing churches always plan for moral failures or church splits? Our church built a 2700 seat sanctuary, 3000 including choir loft. It quickly approached the 80% full mark and added a second service. The growth continued at such a pace that further expansions were made to the church campus within a few years. The only thing that stopped that growth in it’s tracks were some failures that always seem to happen to growing churches. Now, although the building may be too big for the present size of the congregation, it was not originally overbuilt. So should these presumably ‘unavoidable’ failures always be part of the building plan?
I once served at a church that decided to spend 1.5 million on expanding their parking lot because once a year during their Christmas cantata members had to park in the grass and across the street because there was a significantly larger crowd than usual. Their thought process was that someday they would probably need to build a larger worship center and would need the larger parking lot during that time. That never happened of course. Now the church uses less than a quarter of the parking lot during Sunday morning services. They are constantly having to spend money to make repairs on the parking lot (most of which is not used). the police and fire departments primarily use it throughout the year for their drills because it’s so large.
Rather than growing, the church is about half the size of what it was when they built their parking lot addition. It is one of those churches that you often write about that are dying because they refuse to change or get outside their building.
Thom … I inherited a church that is the textbook example of your article … as a matter of fact it gave me chills as I read it. A ministry colleague who knows my situation emailed a link to your blog to me and said, “he’s talking about you!” I need to talk to you or someone about what to do now … the first two-three years I was here, we saw a little growth … but the past year and a half, the bottom has fallen out and we are exactly where your article says such a church will find itself. I’ve tried everything I know to do and reached out for help but no one knows what to do … I even had to seek counseling because this is so frustrating … with no money for an outside consultant … where can we, and I, get some help?
We’re the megachurch that never was. Before public branding of megachurch (2,000+) we were at 1200 with 3 AM services filled to the max in a Chapel seating 400+. Built the huge new sanctuary with hopes (not plans) to grow to 2000 per service. Never grew past 1300 per Sunday total and then-senior pastor had moral failure which curtailed the growth and morale… church carried on $30k per month INTEREST only debt for 15 years until ‘next generation’ paid that off. Now debt free for 17 years and peace and joy in our midst, yet worshipping 500-600 per Sunday in a beautiful auditorium that seats 1800+. Thankfully, we are able to use this facility for the wider Body of Christ and area-wide partnership events.
Do you have a “what’s next” follow-up article? We are 20+ years after building, 15 years after a major schism that cut attendance from 900 to under 400, and 6 years debt-free. Everything you describe has happened–low morale, smaller crowd in large building, ministries with limited dollars.
I serve in a church that has had an opposite problem. We put an addition on for offices, classroom, and youth space, and it all gets used by different ministries, external ministries and orgs throughout the week, but while we had planned for a much larger sanctuary, those plans were derailed by the recession. Then came infighting and a “dying away” of almost half the congregation. We now have a real problem in the size of our little 180 seat sanctuary. Most people that see it for the first time wrongly assume we are either a small family church, or just don’t come back. We need to do three services to accommodate our regular 270 people. At 270, we can’t afford to build, but three services is a logistical and unity nightmare, leading to insular groups. We are trusting God to provide the way forward…
Have you considered 2 services? That would breathe some life into the smaller 3 services.
Tom
Took a church with a 700 seat auditorium and 30 members. Led them to sell for $4 million swapped with a growing church for $2 million. Renovated for 800k, bought a parsonage for 400k and left the church with a new pastor and 350k in the bank. It CAN be done. But patience and the willingness to pull the trigger when God moves and provides is essential.
Love it!
Thom- there’s likely many retired architects, like myself, who could assist in some of these situations, especially situations like Steve’s.
What is the best way for retired or benevolent professionals to network with churches and pastors to help with facility stewardship?
Thank you.
David –
We have an active forum of over 1,000 pastors asking questions like these continually. It is called Church Answers. It is not open for registration now, but I can get Jonathan to let you in if you are interested.
Larry Burkett, a Christian financial advisor, in Gainesville, GA, used to advise churches to not build anything that cost more than 2 1/2 times their annual budget. Mr. Burkett passed away several years ago. Also along with this goes the average age of the Congregation. Today it takes 4 young people under 55, to replace one member of the giving / supporters of that age group and above. These stats are average, and if a church could exceed this there are exceptions to the rule.
I am now pastoring a church that fits this exact description. Since I have come to pastor here 8 months ago, we are now in a position where the board is talking about making cuts including my salary. Very discouraging. I agree with all of your points, and I even spoke with a board member about your blog post and he agreed with all of your points as well. The question we have is, “What do you recommend a church to do to get out of the mess that they are in as a result of building too big a building?”