Friday, May 20, 2005

Church Growth

This weekend our church is scheduled to vote on whether or not to pursue a new building project. Over the past few years we are growing at a rapid pace and our current facility is not big enough for all the people coming. This is a great challenge to face and I am praying that we have wisdom in our response. I was speaking to a friend at the church about it and he said that God is bringing us new people and we have to have a place for them. He said we didn't ask to be a big church. He's absolutely right but we need to examine all our options and I am not completely sold on the idea that building a new church or even expanding our current place is the answer.

Before we build, I want our church to have vision for what kind of church we want to be. Simply because people are coming to our church, does that mean we want to be a big church? Is that our only response? I fear that by opposing a new building project I will be seen as being anti church growth. That is not my position. When we think of church growth we most often think of increasing the number of people in the church. What if we think of it in terms of increasing the number of churches in the area?

I recently spoke to another good friend of mine whose church is on the cutting edge of the church planting movement and I really think they are on to something. As they grow to a certain size, they take lay people from their congregation and plant new churches. Their church is growing but they are not faced with where to build but rather where to start a new church. Building new and bigger churches is a model which has worked in the past but today's church should consider a new paradigm of planting churches instead.

Now there are benefits to bigger churches. They typically have better facilities, more professional presentation and bigger budgets. However, most people in my generation, myself included, are looking for community and relationships and authenticity rather than presentation. Bigger churches have a more difficult time providing this sense of intimacy. Since we live in a corporate world and many church leaders like to apply corporate principles to the church, I'd like to use starbucks as an analogy. When you go to starbucks you go for the coffee, but more than that your go for atmosphere. Starbucks knows this and that is why they don't build huge coffee shops. Instead they build multiple smaller stores to meet the demand and maintain their identity. In fact in some cities you will see a starbucks on every corner. It would be cheaper and more efficient for them to build a super starbucks but that is not their mission. I propose the church should adopt the starbucks model.

By writing this, I do not mean to impugn or disparage big churches or the people in my church who support a new building project. There is room to disagree on how we proceed. I just want to point out that there is an alternate answer and share my vision for how we meet the challenges we are facing.

14 comments:

Jon said...

I don't drink coffee and have never been to Starbucks, but I like your analogy. God bless you for expressing your hesitations about your potential building project. Believe me, I know how hard it is to stand against the flow of a church building project.

I'm guessing the early church didn't build many church buildings, but they certainly were about church growth. Many of the Church revivals and awakenings of the last few hundred years were done through open-air or tent meetings. I question where the desire for comfy chairs, modern worship centers, and comprehensive church facilities comes from. Certainly they can be effective tools of ministry, but clearly there are other models of church growth.

When preaching about money, our senior pastor talks about the storehouse of Deut. 28. He says we should bring tithes and offerings to the church because the church is the storehouse. But is it? Most American churches depend on their week to week offerings to meet their budget, just as most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. A book called "The Debt-Free Church" says that 90% of church building projects in America are financed through loans. That means that most local churches in our country are not storehouses, and not even plain broke, but have a negative cash balance by choosing to borrow. It also means that the church has fallen captive to one of Satan's subtlest lies; that borrowing is fine. How can a church be a storehouse if it owes money? How is that being salt and light?

It seems so simple to me for a church, planning for growth in numbers, to make a commitment to God that they will save the money and once they can pay for it completely, they will build the buildings they think they need. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills and can certainly provide for a church building project if He wants it to happen. When a church makes a commitment to be debt-free, it puts the timing of building projects in God's hands. It takes no faith for a church to go take out a loan, the world does it all the time. It takes tremendous faith to say "God, we believe we need bigger/better facilities and as we undertake our fundraising, we know that You will provide every cent we need, when it is time for us to build. We will wait on Your timing, God." This attitude/commitment assures that a building project will not be rushed into and that it will be better planned. Waiting for God's provision gives time for momentum and excitement to build and for the congregation to invest into the project. Contrast that with worldly desire for intstant gratification. (We want a new church building and we want it now!)

Take the pressure off by committing to be a debt-free church. It will allow your church to be a storehouse. I think you are absolutely right in that your church needs to have a long, healthy discussion of its vision/purpose/goals. That is the basis for the decision to build or not. The commitment not to borrow will likely give you the time to have the important discussions and the time to plan. It will also mean having more resources for staffing/ministry after the building is completed because you won't have monthly payments to make. Plus it puts God in the driver's seat.

Take me to Starbucks sometime. I can get the best of both worlds by drinking hot chocolate and smelling the coffee. We could make Starbucks a "church" for the day...because we are the Church and where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name.....

Anonymous said...

Hey Jeff!
Thank you for stating your concerns and opinions about whether or not Faith Church should consider a building project. Your analogy of Starbucks is intriguing, considering that there are only two Starbucks in the Lansing, MI area (that I'm aware of) that have seating where community and relationship building can happen. How much more community could they help establish if they open more shops or at the very least provide an environment where more than two or three people can sit and discuss issues without taking over the seating of the entire shop? When there is no more seating, Starbucks becomes a drive-thru counter (like their shops in Kroger & Meijer) and creating community ceases to happen. Case in point; I can't hold any meetings or informal get together’s very often at either of the Starbuck's I'm familiar with because I like talking to my friends and colleagues in groups larger than two or three. If by "relationships" you are referring to one-on-one intimate discussion, I would recognize that Starbucks is a great place to do that. But... That is not why Starbucks is in business; they are in business to sell coffee. On the other hand, why are there only two? (There very well could be more than I'm aware of, but that would only change the discussion to why are there only three or four?) I think it is because there is a lot of competition in the coffee shop industry (Beaners, Gone Wired, and mom and pop's). The Eastwood Starbucks, for instance, is located in a place where there is no other coffee shop selling a unique blend of coffee ready to drink. I would assume that Starbucks would not build a brand new shop next door to an already established business selling the same kind of coffee. Now, there is one thing that Starbucks must do before ever breaking ground on a new building project no matter how small or large and that is to establish leadership and infrastructure. It takes time to get that stuff up to the level of support needed to run a business. Which brings up yet another point; when Starbucks opens a new shop in the same town as an old one, does the old shop see a decrease in business? If they do, wouldn’t they do what ever they could to bring new customers into their old store in order to maintain the ravenous they enjoyed before the new store opened? So, to make me sound even longer winded than I truly am, most of the scenarios presented could speak to building a new Starbucks in a new community to reach more people with the wonderful coffee they have to offer. It could also speak to Starbucks staying in their current community and offering a larger environment for more people to come to them and experience their unique blend of ground beans. I have written all this out not just to show my lack of intellectual prowess or to show just how full of hot air I am, but also to show that the leaders (Clergy & Lay) of Faith Church have truly wrestled with most of these issues and arguments. It is my understanding that Faith Church is not interested in becoming a “big church”. As far as I can see, Faith Church is interested in reaching unbelieving individuals with the product of Jesus’ love, and nurturing already committed and believing individuals in sharing about the wonderful product of Jesus’ love. If that is done correctly, growth is natural. Since growth is natural we need to do something to facilitate that growth, and at this point, Faith Church is asking it’s attendees to consider moving to a place where ministry could be done without the constraints of limited space. By the way, the thought of “church planting” is something Faith is interested in regardless of moving or staying.

Your friend,
Bill

fetzer said...

In resonse to the responses,

Kevin -
I do not have a plan for church planting but would be happy to be part of a planning team. I am not sure if we should start another church in Lansing or Detroit or San Franscisco but at least we should be discussing it. Also Like you I have found good relationships at Faith and I am not saying these will not happen if we grow.

Jon -
I'll definitely take you to starbucks for hot chocolate. The one in East Lansing is cool because they have a fire place and comfy chairs. As for taking on debt, I completely agree, As someone who has personal debt I can tell you how limiting it can be. But I think our church plan is pretty good in terms of not spending more than we can afford. If we do go forward with a building project I am going to encourage the church raise all the money ahead of time before breaking ground.

Bill -
Maybe beaners would be a better analogy here in Lansing. There are 3 beaners in a 6 block radius in downtown lansing and they all do very good business. Also you said that starbucks is only in areas that don't have other coffee shops. I am not sure about that but if you want to follow your thinking then yes maybe we should only plant a church in an area that doesn't have as many. Maybe a group of 50 people from our church would be willing to move to Las Vegas or something. You also say that you cannot have a bigger meeting at Starbucks because its too small. That's okay. Their mission is not designed to hold big meetings, It is to create a place to hang out and have coffee with a small group of friends. Finally, I am glad to hear that faith is interested in church planting but I am not sure what that means. Has anybody been approached in our church to plant a church? Do we have a team that is looking at potential locations? I don't mean to be difficult but these are just questions I don't know the answer too.

Anonymous said...

Hey Everybody!

This is Joel (pastor of the big new WalMart style Faith Church coming to a megaplex near you!!!!) :-)

Great conversation and really good questions. One of the things that I wish we could do differently is to have had much more time to process all of this stuff publicly. But we’re working on a deadline (May 31st to secure the property) and the Board’s recommendation is a decision that has just emerged firmly in the last month.

Concerning church planting. Does anybody remember that we sent out a staff member to plant a church (in Calgary)? We sent lots of money and encouraged our leaders to consider moving to help start the church. We’ve partnered with the planting of a church in Ionia. And for years our heart has been to see a church planted in St. Johns (20 miles north). We’ve got a lot of connections in that community. I’ve even interviewed multiple pastors as potential planters for that area. We believe in the value of planting new churches.

But I think the real question many are asking is “Which is better? Big church or small church?” My answer to that question (borrowed from our illustrious D.S.): “Bigger isn’t better. Smaller isn’t better. Better is better.” There are big churches that are floundering and there are small churches that are floundering. There are big churches that are awesome and small churches that are awesome. Sometimes we get wrapped up in the issue of size. But the real issue is effectiveness.

When a church is effective, it grows. When it grows it gets bigger. Then it has 2 equally valid options. 1) Send people away to start a seperate church (which usually means a small percentage who leave) 2) Provide systems to develop all the new people in the bigger church. Which is the right answer?????? Both, of course. However, while I have heard one or two anecdotal stories of a church of 100 or so that divides and plants a new church every couple of years…I’ve not yet had the privilege of observing one in action. What is much more common is the growing regional church that has the resources and personnel to plant highly effective churches that have learned from their model.

By the way, intimacy and community have nothing to do with the size of the church. Research says that you can only know about 82 people in any church…whether the size is 100 or 10,000. (As long as that church has developed systems for accomplishing the biblical purposes of reaching up, reaching out, and reaching in). It is totally a matter of how much effort you put into connecting and committing to the community and ministry of that church. If a person doesn’t get involved in a church of 2,000, they probably won’t do much more in a church of 200.

Is my personal dream to pastor a mega church? NO, my personal dream is to be part of a mega-influence church (as a pastor or a member or whatever). I just want to be part of a body that is accomplishing its mission and making a difference. In our area, there are simply not a whole lot of churches like Faith Church. It’s not like we have mega-influence churches on every corner. I don’t think we’re pursuing a dream that has anything to do with size. It has to do with effectiveness. Seeing lives changed. Today we can do things on a scale that we were never able to do when we were a church of 100. We provide children’s ministries and ministry opportunities that connect with certain people today. We’re not for everybody. But there are many who would not be following Christ today if it had not been through the ministries that did not exist years ago.

I love you guys, but I’ll quit now because my fingers are getting sore from typing this rambling monologue. I look forward to a great prayer session tonight and an exciting meeting Sunday as we discern God’s Will through the voice of his people.

Joel

Matt and Heidi said...

These are great discussions. Joel, you've got some good thinkers in your community -- that's awesome!

Hi, by the way. Remember me, Matt Furr, from IWU?

Jeff, keep asking good questions and pushing on stuff. There are many creative solutions to numerical growth in a church. Bring them to the table and talk them through.

IndyMom said...

I appreciated Jon's comments on not going into debt. I think the plans that have been shared so far concerning the options of expanding at the current Faith Church location or moving to a new location sound great if we don't have to go into debt.

This afternoon as I was considering the issue at hand I looked at a couple of articles on the Crown Financial Ministries website. Following are some of the things that stuck out to me:

"if borrowing is allowable for Christians (and it is within limits), it must be allowable for the church too." "However, does the church settle for the allowable or for the best?"

"It's not a lack of money that necessitates church borrowing. It's a lack of commitment to give."

"Although it is not a sin for a church to borrow, it does circumvent the need to trust God."

"God's method calls for taking freewill offerings and then proceeding when enough has been collected; the human method is to borrow now and pay back later."

kyperman said...

Central Wesleyan Church where I attend did borrow money to build the new sactuary in which we now worship, and if I am not mistaken, it was in the millions that we borrowed...but it was paid off in like 3 years...

I don't feel there is anything wrong with a church borrowing money if there is a good and firm plan to pay it off.

DAKOTARANGER said...

Here's my three dollar answer (sorry Starbuck's joke). All Jeff is saying is there are other options than just building.

There is just one Wesleyan Church in town and it is on the North side of town not centered at all. One of the things I know about you easterners if it is more than five miles you won't drive to shop or attend services. There are very few choices for churches down in Holt, East Lansing or West of Town. While there are a Lutheren Church and Catholic Church downtown.

I know Faith Wesleyan does a good job of out reach but do you go to the south end? Part of Jeff's point is the cause of Christ might be advanced if the church would send a handfull of people to start a second church. THE PRIMARY FUNCTION of Christians is spreading the gospel.

The responisibility of the church (body of Christ, not the building) is to arm the faithfull with the truth, the second is fellowship. The second is alot harder when you have a congregation several hundred because it makes it immpossible to have the pastor really know the flock (And it burns pastors out alot faster). It is easier for people to run out the door after service because there are so many people that it is hard to keep track of anyone.

In a smaller church you can remember faces. You can have more families in your home and feel more connected. It is just easier to get to know people.

As far as it makes it easier to pay multiple pastor saleries true but the problem is even in the bigger churches you only have maybe 4% of the congregation carring the whole. The Body has to be reminded that those that work for the cause of Christ desearve what ever they get (I truely believe this) but I would feel guilty as a pastor if I made $100,000 (No, I know Joel is getting paid that)

It would be a worthy thing to discuss church planting before the knee jerk reaction of Building bigger. There is a parable about a farm whose crop was so great that he decided to tear down the old siloes and build bigger, then rested on his laurals. God called him a fool and killed him. I know of plenty of pastors who didn't feel successfull until they were in a building project (there again that isn't Joel)

You guys might ultimately decide what God wants you to do is build, but discuss the church planting thing also.

Craig A. Olmsted, Former Pastors Kid

Heidi said...

Fetz dear,
Good observations, good thoughts. Here's my experience. I grew up in multiple small churches (200 or less). Generally dangerous, nasty little places. Husband spent 6 years on staff at a mega church. I'd take the megachurch anyday b/c of influence and effectiveness. But those two qualities have more to do with the leadership at the helm. The small churches I grew up in were sickly places, though they had rare seasons of "effectiveness", usually after the pastor burned out, the church split, and they hired some poor, new, optomistic fellow. While living in a megachuch I had a sense of security because, though there were uprisings that were unhealthy, they were easier to dillute and weather than the little churches, IMHO.

Come visit soon.

Anonymous said...

Under certain circumstances, this could be a blast! How do you see it panning out in the next 12 months fetzer ? If we really consider self improvement statistics , where could it lead?

Anonymous said...

A good example would women's self improvement workshops. fetzer, when you first started on Church Growth, what other
possibilities did you imagine? I'll bet there were heaps. And just look where they could lead!

Anonymous said...

Good design!
[url=http://uypyeeuu.com/lsjy/zogh.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://knwmpgfh.com/vbts/whup.html]Cool site[/url]

Anonymous said...

Good design!
My homepage | Please visit

Anonymous said...

Well done!
http://uypyeeuu.com/lsjy/zogh.html | http://unehlalb.com/erkx/tino.html