It was chaos every Sunday,” said Norman Wenig. “We had people everywhere. We knocked out room partitions to have more space- that helped for about two weeks. We renovated a two-car garage by cementing the dirt floor, putting in air conditioning, and insulating it. We used the parsonage for Sunday school space. Just when we thought things were under control, we realized our adult class was short on space. We moved that to the school gym. Then we didn’t have enough room for children’s church. The juggling seemed endless.”
Wenig, pastor of First Assembly of God Church, Burlington, Iowa, is over the worst of his hassles with church facilities. Like hundreds of others, his church found itself forced by sudden, rapid growth into makeshift solutions. In his words, “We were absolutely jammed.”
A good problem, perhaps, but a problem all the same. And it’s one many churches face at one time or another. What to do?
The answers, of course, depend on the particulars of each situation. The most obvious answer- build a new church-isn’t always feasible. There are other options, some brand-new and some tried by other churches, to help ministries bursting at the seams.
To seed your thinking about what your church might do to alleviate growing pains, here are some creative ways others have approached this problem.
Non-Traditional Structures
The first thing you see as you enter Willow Creek Church in Palatine, Illinois, is an energetic crowd of people milling about a large, glass-walled lobby. Most of them, you estimate, are under thirtyfive; more wear blue jeans than suits and dresses.
You work your way through the crowd, in an area that smells vaguely of popcorn from the night before, to a poorly-lighted worship area. In the half-darkness, you see rows of cushioned seats where pews should be. At the front you notice a well-lighted stage where a pulpit might have been. It’s wall-to-wall with instruments, microphones, and media screens.
Pastor Bill Hybels and his congregation have met in this theatre for five years. When talking about it, Hybels says, “We wanted a neutral facility that would attract nonchurch people, individuals who have an aversion to being associated with formal church structures and particular denominations.”
As a supplement to the very basic gospel message presented each Sunday, a fifteen-piece band performs contemporary music, dramatic groups present plays and skits and some talented photo and sound technicians give vivid multimedia presentations. In almost every way-the type of people attracted and reached for Christ, the kind of ministry presented, the objectives of using a theatre for a church-Hybels’ original dream has been realized.
Still, there is some dissatisfaction about renting this non-traditional structure instead of owning a permanent facility. Thus, Willow Creek Church is currently implementing a very traditional building program. Several reasons are given for this change:
¥ Two full-time men are employed to do nothing but haul and set up equipment for the various meetings. This expense could be reduced if a building were owned.
¥ The church offices are in an industrial park in Palatine, and people often don’t know how to make contact.
¥ Sunday school classes and other small groups, which normally would meet at church, are severely handicapped by the lack of privacy and space.
¥ Although the ministry has special meaning for non-traditional types, many of this kind are “church hoppers and Christian groupies” who are less committed to a total church ministry. They need ministry as much as anyone else, and the original intention was to reach them especially; but when trying to build a deeper-life ministry, a broader group is needed for commitment.
¥ There is a general suspicion by midstream people that a congregation without permanent facilities is transient and associated with a kind of fanaticism.
¥ Using rented facilities on a week-to-week or month-to-month basis results in continual frustration for organized outreach.
Hybels recalls an incident involving their youth ministry, Son City, which works with about 600 high school students every night. They depend on a certain park district gymnasium to be available each Thursday night, and to make sure they get it, they have to sign up every Thursday morning. Son City was once bumped for an archery class, and they had a few hours to notify the 600 kids. Panic set in, and after doing what they could, they still weren’t sure all the kids had the word. Bill and one of his staff members hung around the gym that night in case anyone showed up. Fortunately, the word had gone around; but the 600 had been bumped for six kids shooting bows and arrows.
The people have had enough. Willow Creek Church will soon occupy its own permanent facility on ninety acres of land.
Sunrise Presbyterian Church in Phoenix, Arizona, on the other hand, meets in the local YMCA, and has no plans for building. Pastor Eugene Lefebvre founded this 200-member church, and out of financial necessity was forced to rent a non-traditional facility. He believes it was the best thing that could have happened. His reasons include:
¥ The total overhead draws less than 15 percent of the church budget.
¥ There is freedom to be flexible as a congregation that shows up in practical ways. For the past couple of winters, they have held adult retreats. Since all the ministries of the congregation are not tied to the habitual, weekly occupation of a church building, they are freer to move the whole congregation to the
retreat area for one Sunday’s worship time.
¥ Rented space forces the people to be more creative. Volunteers haul in books and equipment, set up chairs, and plan the worship. Since they rotate responsibilities, the chairs are often set up differently, decorations vary, and the order of the service changes. The element of surprise is always there.
According to Lefebvre, some deeper benefits have also emerged from the situation. After meeting in the YMCA for several years, the congregation met for in-depth discussions about building and long-range planning. The bottom line of these talks was that the church became totally unified in a perspective on whether or not to build. “They realized,” says Lefebvre, “that buildings do not represent permanence; the yearly commitment of people toward each other represents permanence, and we had achieved that already. It was as if existing as a congregation without our own building had freed us from attaching unnecessary significance to owning one. We also brainstormed about some day sharing rented space with like-minded organizations, and developing some sort of corporate ministry such as an interdenominational counseling service.
“It was a beautiful time of focusing in on people and ministries,” adds Lefebvre. “We’re a growing congregation, but we have no plans for building anything but fellowship.”
When the Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church,
Commack, New York, opted to meet in nontraditional facilities, it did so only after conducting a one-year, thorough study of itself, the surrounding community, and the relationship between the two. This study, which they called the Mission and Mortar Study, showed them that the nonbuilding option would be the best option, and perhaps the only viable option.
Several task groups were formed in the congregation, each with a specific research assignment. One researched census data and growth trends of the community; another interviewed local religious leaders; a third talked to business leaders; and a fourth to school officials. They wanted to know: How do you describe this community? What are the needs of this community? A detailed profile of Commack emerged, which served as a background for in-depth discussions of how the church should fit into the community. They drew the following conclusions:
¥”As a collection of evangelical Christians, this church is a small minority in a community vastly indifferent to religion. According to our study, most of the city is either culturally Jewish or nominally Roman Catholic. Realistically, therefore, we believe this church will always be small.”
¥”The nine Protestant churches in the area generally operate in a traditional manner, seeking money for new and enlarged facilities, and competing with each other. We would like to offer something different to the Protestants who make up 15 percent of this community.”
Based on these and other conclusions, the church agreed that its mission “would best be channeled through existing or proposed community structures.” Thus, the church worshiped in rooms of a manse, converted a garage into an all-purpose room, and held church school in individual homes. They’ve operated like this for almost fifteen years.
“It’s been exciting,” says Pastor Douglas Bartlett. “We have added people slowly over the years; most of the growth has been internal. By worshiping in the warmth of homes, we believe we’ve become a closer fellowship than if we had used a traditional church facility all these years. There is no back row in our church.”
Worshiping Under the Same Roof
Eroded brick sidewalks, shadowy corridors, and aging buildings line the streets of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The buildings, many constructed more than a century ago, stand tall and block out the sun. Churches which once overflowed with members now harbor only the remnants of former congregations.
Thus, when the Cambridge Christian Center formed several years ago, it went straight to the door of an old Congregational church. This structure of red bricks and stained glass seated 600, yet it had an active membership of about 30. The two congregations began a coexistence that is still active.
“It was a great financial arrangement for us,” says Michael Davis, pastor of Cambridge Christian Center. “We had a very low budget, and they were willing to share their entire facility for three hundred dollars a month.”
The Congregational church drew up a document that spelled out all the things Cambridge Christian Center could and could not do with the building. According to Davis, “We can do nothing to the building that is permanent. If we want to lower the platform in the sanctuary so there would be better communication between speaker and audience, or if we want to install a baptismal tank, we are prohibited from doing so. It’s a little frustrating. I feel we could do a lot more if we had more liberty to modify the facility.”
This situation is common among congregations who benefit financially by sharing another church’s facility, yet who are forbidden to shape it to better suit their needs. To make this concept work best, there has to be some kind of mutual ownership and management of property.
Five years ago, the Centenary United Methodist Church of Mankato, Minnesota, was in trouble. Its 1907 building had developed severe structural cracks. At the same time, the First Congregational Church down the road had a sagging roof that threatened to cave in any day. The building of the First Baptist Church was just plain cramped for enough space.
The laity in these churches began to push for the formation of a multi-church facility. Initiators of the project managed to convince the leadership of each congregation that they’d be better off if they pooled their resources and built one large structure on the more-than-adequate property of the Centenary Methodist Church.
In one great leap of faith, the churches finally turned their properties over to the newly-formed Multi-Church Foundation, a non-profit corporation. After the existing properties were sold and the new facility was completed, the corporation deeded ownership to each congregation, proportionate to membership size. The 1,000-member Methodist body received 731/2 percent; the Baptists, with 175 members, received 15 percent; and the 100-member Congregational body was given 11/2 percent.
No one church owns a specific section of Multi-Church Center. A master schedule, closely monitored by a volunteer, controls the use of the building. There are two sanctuaries, an education building, a dining and multi-purpose area, and many smaller workrooms and offices. Each church maintains its own programs and activities, and pays its own staff. The corporation, whose board of directors includes elected representatives from each church, controls maintenance and utilities expense.
Lon Schneider, pastor of the Baptist church, lists several financial advantages:
¥ Each church pays only about $5,000 a year for maintenance, insurance, and utilities. Heating one church instead of three results in a substantial savings in energy.
¥ Office equipment is much more affordable with three churches using mimeographs, typewriters, and dictation units.
¥ The one large library has more volumes and resource materials than would normally be purchased by just one church.
¥ One qualified Christian education director oversees all three C.E. programs.
¥ Each church choir has access to the sheet music and tapes in the music library.
¥ The three pastoral staffs share secretarial help, and also enjoy sharing ideas.
¥ When special programs are planned, they can combine the choirs and have all three churches participate.
A Discount-House Cathedral
“We’ve reached a point in our church’s growth where we must seriously consider some kind of expansion. We’re rapidly approaching an impossible situation.”
These were the words of Ellis Mooney, pastor of Sheboygan Evangelical Free Church, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. It was the summer of 1975. To compound matters, all the reports from the relocation advisers were negative: “Relocating will mean a monetary loss.” “The church won’t realize its investment if it sells now.” “It will cost more than three times the original construction cost to build something new.”
The church prayed and mulled over the building options for several months. In the meantime, three of the leaders in the congregation had at various times passed the big, deserted discount house that stood empty on one of the town’s main streets. Each man thought to himself, “Now, that building could serve as a church.” But they all felt too embarrassed to suggest it to anyone else. “They’ll think I’m nuts.”
Finally, two of them met one evening and discussed it. The building was exactly what the church needed. It had been completely rebuilt after a fire only four years earlier, so it was practically new. The property occupied one city block, which was already paved for parking cars. The total floor space was more than adequate to house the church, and there was plenty of room for growth.
On the recommendation of these men, the church contacted the owners of the building and made an offer of $185,000. The owners wanted $315,000. Each group then compromised $65,000, and the building was sold. “To build a church of equal size on the same amount of paved property would have cost about $750,000,” says Mooney.
Once the building was purchased, the church began the long process of renovation. According to Mooney, there was enthusiastic involvement by almost everyone in the church. “We had painters, dry wallers, and plumbers from the congregation who worked in their free time. Everyone from junior high up became involved. It was all done with a beautiful spirit.”
After the church moved into its new facility, it had more than twice as much space than its original building had. The whole adventure had been a lesson in creativity.
As Mooney was reading the newspaper one day, he noted that a chain of 29 supermarkets had been recently shut down in Milwaukee. Still marveling at his own “discount-house cathedral,” he reflected, “What a tremendous opportunity for churches needing new facilities.”
Making the Most of One Facility
Up to this point, we’ve shared a few ideas that perhaps might stimulate the thinking of churches considering relocation. Some churches, however, don’t want to move. Here are a few that are making efficient and productive use of their buildings.
The Pulpit Rock Church of Colorado Springs, Colorado, is committed to multiple use of its building. “We didn’t want to make a big investment in a building we would use for a minimal amount of time,” says pastor Michael Tucker.
Consequently, everything in the auditorium is mobile. After the Sunday service, Tucker asks for volunteers to stay and help disassemble the platform and store the chairs. Usually fifty or sixty people respond enthusiastically. When the volleyball groups come in and set their nets up the following evening, the question is often asked, “Where do you people worship?”
Tucker says, “We had originally intended to build another structure so we could have a large sanctuary and a large multi-purpose area. But we opted to make a much smaller investment in mobile equipment so we could use the same room for many purposes. We’re convinced it was the right option-and there are many benefits:
O Volunteers are involved in the details of every worship service.
¥ Community organizations can use our facility during the week.
¥ Our members are more excited about the church’s total ministry because they realize the money that has been saved.”
Tucker is committed to a silent outreach to the community, and offers the facility to almost anyone. Organizations such as Amway, the Boy Scouts, and the Elks use it regularly. “We find it’s a good business practice: the more people who walk through our building during the week, the more who are likely to return.”
The Signal Hill Lutheran Church in Belleville, Illinois, echoes this idea One concerned member had said, “Our church is noted for its darkness at night-not its brightness.”
Not long after this comment, a committee was formed for a study on the use of the church facilities. It checked other churches of similar size and facilities, and discovered that some of them rented their buildings out during the week.
The committee wrote a report to the church council that basically said, “We have determined that our church property is under-utilized. The normal use of our facilities is for Sunday services, Sunday school, Tuesday night meetings, and special events such as church dinners. The rough estimate is that our building is used less than 40 percent of the time.” They urged the formation of a policy that would offer community organizations the opportunity to use the church, listing potential groups that might be interested such as: Southern Illinois University Night School, state area programs for the aging, civic clubs, women’s groups, and physical fitness classes. They also listed advantages of such a policy:
¥ Offering the facilities for such use would reverse the current image that this congregation is not interested in the surrounding community.
¥ Increased use of the facilities will not increase deterioration. Because of more regular use, a higher level of care will be maintained.
¥ By opening the church, more young people will be attracted.
The church voted 100 percent for the policy, and it has been successfully implemented. Payment for the facilities is decided on a case-by-case basis. It varies according to the use of light, heat, custodial services, and whether the group applying is nonprofit.
Clearly, the Signal Hill Lutheran Church could turn the effort into a fund raiser and bring in money to help defray their expenses. But as pastor Henry Simon says, “We’re not seeking any financial advantage. We just want to break even and make the church more visible.”
Visibility during the week is no problem for the Fairlane Assembly of God in Dearborn Heights, Michigan. The lights burn nightly in rooms filled with Sunday school classes that once met Sunday mornings.
According to the pastor, John Booher, “It was out of necessity. We moved to two worship services on Sunday mornings and tried to sandwich Sunday school between them. It was too limiting. So rather than trying to preach, teach, and evangelize on the same day, we simply shifted Sunday school to Tuesday night.”
When Booher first suggested Tuesday school from the pulpit, some people thought he had killed the sacred cow. “Tuesday school” didn’t even sound right. But after the transition was made, Sunday school on Tuesday night became so popular it spilled over to Thursday night. “The church would never go back now,” says Booher. Reasons include:
¥ It’s more informal. People come dressed in casual clothes, get a cup of coffee, chat with others. They actually enjoy their classes.
¥ There’s more time for study. After working all day, they’re ready to settle back for two hours of Bible study.
¥ The week-to-week continuity is better. When people leave for a weekend, the traditional Sunday morning education process is interrupted. This doesn’t happen meeting during the week.
The only problem now is the children’s department. It’s grown so big it will have to be split off again.
Churches bursting at the seams–Sunday schools meeting in restaurants-five Sunday worship services. Many churches are forced into creatively manipulating their facilities and congregations to adjust to fluctuating growth patterns.
Pastor Bud Palmberg’s next step is to provide worship services on Thursday evenings and Friday mornings for the Mercer Island Covenant Church in Seattle, Washington. “This will provide services not only for the overflow, but also for those who frequently leave town on weekends,” he says.
To congregations facing the option of going to multiple sessions for the first time, a lot of uncertainty can surface. The most common question raised is “Will multiple sessions split the congregation?” This does not need to happen if a deliberate effort is made to provide fellowship for all apart from the worship services.
Pastor David Clardie, of Richland Center Methodist Church, Richland, Wisconsin, found he didn’t have to do a thing. “We found we had more people coming to the Sunday night service because many of them were at different services in the morning. Sunday night became a very spirited comingtogether celebration.”
Church leaders who have successfully led their congregations into multiple sessions agree that “the more information you have concerning your congregation’s needs regarding Sunday morning worship, the easier the transition will be.”
Dan Bower, Christian education director at Crystal Evangelical Free Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, took part in leading his former church in this direction. He used questionnaires to get input from the congregation. In the first questionnaire, two questions were asked: 1) Which of the following time slots would you like to see implemented for services? and 2) Which service would you plan to attend?
According to Bower, although 400 people indicated they would be interested in attending the early service, they averaged only 75 in actual attendance. Since the plan was not working, they scrapped it, went back to the drawing board, and drew up a more sophisticated questionnaire. Some queries were:
1. How important is it that the adults and teenagers in your family be able to attend the worship service together?
2. When would you and your family be most likely to participate in Sunday school classes?
3. Is there anything about these schedule alternatives that cause you or your family difficulty and inconvenience?
The questionnaire was thorough-six pages long, and was footnoted with this statement: “All three services will be as nearly equal as possible. The pastor will preach at all three, there will be similar chairs, special music, and basic support assistance at all three services.”
This time the plan for multiple sessions worked. “People have to see the total effect on themselves, their families, and the rest of the church,” Bower adds. “And they have to know they won’t be given lower quality.”
Congregations will continue to struggle with facilities problems. Obviously, we’ve given merely a quick overview of various possibilities. (See Effective Use of Church Space by Ralph L. Belknap, Judson Press, for more information.)
Perhaps your congregation is experimenting with some workable ideas. If so, we’d appreciate your writing and sharing them with us so we can report some in “Tips and Trends.”
Copyright © 1981 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
