On Pentecost last year, 850 gathered for worship beneath an enormous yellow-and-white tent on a church lawn in Falls Church, Virginia. Folding chairs were arranged in roughly the same configuration as pews in a planned sanctuary to be built on that site.
It was Celebration Sunday at The Falls Church (Episcopal), and for the first time in recent memory, the whole congregation worshiped as one. The co-chairs of the building fund campaign, John and Tucker Viccellio, announced pledges totaling $1.5 million, including a donation that day of five dollars and change delivered in a plastic sandwich bag by a kindergartner.
The congregation had finished a three-month fund drive, reaching (just barely) its minimum goal for going ahead with plans to build. In the glow of celebration, a question persisted: Will it all come together? The church faced the need to raise more money. Construction and design details had to be finished and approved, under the watchful eye of a city council that is fiercely protective of historic landmarks—particularly The Falls Church, for which the city was named. George Washington had served on the church’s vestry when the original building was completed in 1769.
The enormous size of the building program was just beginning to sink in. Reflecting on the tasks ahead, John Viccellio said, “I think the new building will happen. I don’t think it will be easy.”
As the project developed, a few long-time church members were cool to any building plan. Some felt threatened by the idea of a large, new worship center.
The Viccellios and the rector, John Yates, responded quickly to the concerns raised by individuals. No one expected unanimous support for every aspect of the plan. But the depth and source of some opposition surprised clergy and lay leaders alike.
In any building project, at any stage, trouble can come in ways church leaders least expect. What are some of the hidden “rocks” that can threaten to sink even the most carefully navigated building program? And how can a church stay off of them? I investigated several churches that went through the treacherous waters, and I discovered some specific questions each congregation will need to address to complete a building program successfully.
How Can We Present the Vision Clearly?
Before the congregation will give its support, it must understand the purpose of the project. Articulating a crystal-clear vision lays the foundation for enthusiastic support.
At Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie Minnesota, construction of a 2,000-seat worship center on a newly purchased site grew out of a ten-year process of study and prayer. Part of the overall vision involved becoming an all-purpose community resource.
A community survey conducted by the church showed 62 percent of the households within five miles of the new site came from Catholic or Lutheran backgrounds. In response, elder Austin Chapman said, Wooddale’s leaders decided to offer “a more liturgical, formal, organized kind of service than other evangelical groups.” The church changed its name from Wooddale Baptist Church to, simply, Wooddale Church.
The building project was part of this larger effort to serve the community. The congregation also knew the building would be used for blood drives, alcoholism recovery meetings, musical productions, and other community-based activities. The building program grew out of the vision to reach the community more effectively.
Churches that do not develop a captivation vision for ministry may find enthusiasm flagging when a building program demands more time, money, and ingenuity than they expected. In the absence of a shared overall vision, opposition is more likely to be vocal, organized, and persuasive.
Wooddale’s sense of vision and direction did not arrive overnight. It required a long, painstaking process. Chapman expained, “The church board evaluated our strengths and weaknesses, where we wanted to go, and what we wanted to be. We spent a lot of time looking at trends in the evangelical church and trends in the secular world. We tried to understand how those would impact us. We looked at our resources and our limitations and studied Scripture in relation to all of this.”
Over the course of a year, pastor Leith Anderson recalled, the church held twenty-five lengthy business meetings, “not for routine business, but to help decide our direction.” By the end of that year, the board stood united in knowing where they wanted to go and how to get there.
The next step was informing the congregation and winning its support. After a series of meetings with church leaders, the board held open forums. Anderson recalled, “We didn’t want to make the mistake some churches do: they go through a complicated decision-making process and then have a business meeting and expect the people to approve their plan, which was four years in the making, in forty minutes. People can’t do it that quickly.”
But given time to understand a clear vision, most parishioners will get behind a program to build.
How Can We Get the Building We Need at a Price We Can Afford?
Once a clear vision has been determined and communicated, church leaders move to a second question: What facilities do we need to support this vision, and how can we pay for them?
At West End Assembly of God in Richmond, Virginia, pastor Bob Rhoden described one building program as “a total disaster.” It began with an absence of shared ministry goals. As the project went forward, it became clear that the crowds of 500 who attended West End were interested in coming to big meetings to hear well-known speakers. But “when we started talking about a church,” Rhoden says, “the people didn’t want to hear anything about making a commitment.”
To make matters worse, construction costs escalated beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Two people from within the congregation were hired to plan the building, Rhoden said. “They estimated $250,000 for an activities building. Then an architect told us it would be more like $400,000.” Bids came in from contracting firms in the $600,000 range. And unforeseen county requirements drove the final bill up to $980,000.
Said Rhoden, “It was a very tough time. I would not want to go through it again.”
Lack of a clear vision got West End into trouble, and Rhoden said developing a vision for ministry helped the church find its way out of debt. After the disastrous building project, West End developed a commitment to short-term missions. The church has now built twenty other churches overseas, and sends out short-term mission teams in the areas of medicine, music and fine arts, and construction. “As we focused on the needs of others, our needs were met,” Rhoden observed. “Our contributions kept chipping away at the debt until it reached a manageable level.”
Today the church has 1,300 members and just completed a $5 million building without any of the unexpected pitfalls that plagued their first attempt.
The lesson: Cost overruns are the rule, not the exception, in church building programs. Flexibility becomes a necessity.
Calvary Lutheran Church near Minneapolis took two innovative approaches to a recent building program that helped anticipate and avoid financial problems. Church member Dayton Soby was congregational president at the time. He said, “The vote was taken on a simple question: ‘Should we build a new sanctuary or not?'” After the idea was approved, the church began raising money.
They raised funds, and then appointed a committee to analyze how much the church could afford to borrow. “We looked at the cash flow and calculated the amount we could borrow, based not on what we needed but on what we could pay,” Soby said. As a result of this, the original plans were scaled down. Instead of a 1,500-seat sanctuary, the church planned a 1,200-seat building. And they did without a full basement.
Calvary opted to take bids and retain a contractor before they had specific building plans drawn up by an architect. Usually a church gets bids only after it has approved an architect’s plans. Soby explained, “The problem with that approach is that if you discover the plans cost too much, you have to start over.”
Having the contractor on board early saved money in some unanticipated areas. Pastor Maynard Nelson said the contractor suggested using a less costly type of concrete block instead of the red brick the architect had proposed. That suggestion saved the church $60,000.
How Can We Raise the Money without Making People Feel Pressured?
Getting people enthused about a building program is one thing getting them to open their wallets cheerfully is another. Without knowing exactly how a congregation will respond, most churches face an early decision about whether to hire a fundraiser.
At The Falls Church, a consultant from the Texas-based Rogers Company was retained. For a $42,000 fee, the company remains “on call” for the duration of the project, estimated to be three years. Active involvement by the consultant lasted about six months. Church leaders have agreed the investment was worthwhile.
John and Tucker Viccellio, who had never before been involved in fundraising, co-chaired the campaign under consultant G. C. Brown’s direction. “Without a consultant, it would have taken us years to plan and carry out a program of this quality,” John observed. “Having an imposed schedule gave us the discipline to get on with it. I liked Brown’s focus on invitation, individual prayer and consideration, and free, cheerful decisions.”
There was no quota system, no hint that parish volunteers would have to strong-arm their brothers and sisters. Instead, volunteers visited each church member twice, first to present information about the building program and invite members to begin praying about their participation. Later, other volunteers picked up pledge cards from members wanting to make a commitment to the program.
Training was crucial, and it was difficult. Tucker rioted, “People hear what they want to hear. No “matter how many times we said, ‘You are not going to homes to ask for money,’ some people just tuned it out.”
The Viccellios wrestled with another aspect of their role as well. They felt the need to speak out and provide leadership to other parishioners about the extent of their own financial commitment to the program. John said, “On the one hand, we wanted to let people know what we were doing so it would be a beacon for others to follow. On the other hand, a public witness about money may encourage some people and be a total turn-off to others.”
They decided to describe their commitment as a percentage of their income. “We felt that would give people a feeling for the degree to which we were making a sacrifice, and yet it didn’t put up a dollar figure people could snipe at or feel guilty about,” John said.
The Viccellios found themselves walking a similar tightrope as they planned and promoted an “advance commitment dinner” designed to attract early pledges from a small number of highly committed members. Tucker remembered, “I’d been getting word from people, ‘If we need the money so badly, why are we spending so much for a dinner?’ People were getting upset, and I just began to pray that someone could see their way clear to pay for it.
“Finally, someone stepped forward to pay for the whole dinner. That was the biggest faith builder of the whole campaign.”
The Viccellios provided more than leadership for their church’s fundraising drive. They modeled, for the rest of the congregation, sacrificial giving and personal concern for helping every church member, no matter what income level, feel a vital part of the program.
How Can We Disarm Critics without Chasing Them Away?
Calvary Lutheran near Minneapolis guarded itself prudently against unmanageable cost overruns, but it encountered another hidden obstacle that threatens some building programs. An organized group within the church set out to thwart the building program. The first time around, they succeeded.
Lay leader Soby explained, “The first time a building plan was put to a vote, in 1977, the plans were fairly specific. It was soundly defeated, by opponents who were against any building program as well as those who opposed certain aspects of the plan that had been drawn up without their input.”
Soby conduded, “The leaders of a church may all agree, but others may feel left out.” The second time around, the congregation voted simply on whether or not to build, without having to approve a specific plan. A series of meetings permitted everyone in the church to discuss various ideas, comment, and complain. This time, the vote passed. “Just as in any other election, success lies in how many minorities you can pull together,” Soby said. “You need to disarm and not reject the people who are opposed.”
Soby and Nelson paid special attention to opponents and inducled them every step of the way. “One guy showed up at every session,” Soby recalled. “He wanted at one point to shut down construction, but we just couldn’t do that. He learned to trust—to know we were not pulling a fast one. We affirmed his right to speak his opinion.”
Pastor Nelson noted that it is easy for a pastor and other leaders to become defensive and use their platform to club people. But if the pastor and leaders can be healers, some of the old opponents will get behind them. “Conflict should not be looked upon as bad, nor should it come as a surprise. There are always some who don’t want change or who are not open to deeper commitment,” he said.
Sometimes, though, support can come from where leaders least expect it. At Calvary, a missionary to India and Bangladesh happened to be home on furlough at the time the congregation was considering the building program. He was very concerned about missions and the church’s commitment to outreach—concerns raised by some who opposed a building program. But the missionary strongly supported the new building. He spoke up at a congregational meeting to say, “The light that shines farthest abroad shines brightest at home.”
It is essential for church leaders to anticipate recalcitrance—if not outright opposition—when a new building plan is proposed. They can live with it, and even benefit from it, by planning in advance to receive input from all segments of the congregation; by answering individual concerns swiftly and specifically; and by making sure everyone understands exactly what is being presented for a vote.
What If We Have to Fight City Hall?
Another hidden rock that threatens to sink building projects can be city or county regulations about additions and new buildings. Maintaining close rapport with local officials is essential; so is understanding the laws that govern zoning, property use, and incidentals such as parking.
A prominent evangelical presence near Pittsburgh, St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, has been in court for more than two years with the borough of Sewickley, Pennsylvania. The need for additional space at St. Stephen’s—now holding five Sunday morning services—is critical.
Dick Johnson, a former building committee member and key lay leader, said the problems began when the church applied for building permits and demolition permits. “Zoning ordinances were changed just before we submitted our request for a building permit. They put severe restrictions on new buildings or additions.”
After one year of negotiations, the borough and the church reached a compromise on the size of the proposed building, its seating capacity, and its outward appearance. But that compromise was challenged by a group of intervenors.
Both sides of this dispute incurred legal fees of more than $100,000, and the church still is not sure what the outcome will be.
Johnson’s advice to other churches that might face similar problems? “Get a zoning lawyer who knows exactly what you’re going to build and what the ordinances are, as early as possible. Second, develop rapport with the community, be open with them, and recognize their needs.”
How Can We Avoid Making a Major Misstep?
A final common question boards have about building is seldom voiced: When we’re dealing with this much time and money and energy, how can we avoid making a major mistake?
A church whose pastor requested anonymity received what appeared to be a tremendous gift recently. A wealthy man in the congregation died suddenly, and his widow wanted to do something significant in his memory. She offered to pay in full for a new chapel—something the church needed but had no money to build.
The family kept to itself the right to approve or veto plans for the chapel. The pastor said, “Emphasis was placed on making it beautiful rather than functional.” In collaboration with an architect, the family designed a lovely chapel, with very high ceilings, a wood floor, and custom-made unpadded pews. “Architects are notorious for overlooking acoustics,” the pastor observed, “and the chapel has no sound absorption.”
As a result, it is functionally useless for activities that include preaching, speaking, or sharing prayer requests from the congregation. Fixing the chapel will cost the church a substantial sum of money. “How do you go to someone who gave more than three-quarters of a million dollars for a new building and say, ‘It doesn’t work’?” the pastor wondered. That is the task facing him now.
In retrospect, this pastor said it was a mistake to give one family so much decision-making authority. Architectural plans ought to be reviewed by several people with different areas of expertise—preferably, people from the congregation who serve on a building committee. Then a major consideration such as acoustics won’t be overlooked.
At a Nazarene church in Portland, Oregon, a construction error caused a 100-foot wooden beam in the ceiling to collapse one year after the building was dedicated. Fortunately, it happened on a weekday, and no one was hurt.
Former pastor Alan Rodda recalled, “It just was not engineered correctly for the stress of the building. We were forced out of the building for about four months, and we had to take out a third mortgage for repairs.” The insurance settlement on the roof paid off the new mortgage. Planning—in this case, by obtaining adequate insurance coverage—meant the church avoided a long and difficult financial recovery from the accident.
In another case, when Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, was considering a relocation, it sent out a team of three laypeople and the pastor, over a period of several months, to visit twenty similar churches that had been through a relocation. Building committee vice chairman Austin Chapman recalled learning a lot from those visits. “Everyone said, ‘We should have built bigger.’ “As a result, the congregation bought a larger parcel of land, and as their needs for facilities and parking have increased, they have been glad they made that decision.
Count It All Joy
Based on his experiences, Rodda has some advice for other church leaders embarking on a building program: “Be patient, be philosophical, manage the pressures, and don’t react to opposition. If something might cost extra, it will. You cannot plan too perfectly, and you need to maintain some flexibility. It is such a huge project in the life of a church that it dominates everything for a while.”
But keep in mind, Rodda said, that the end product will be a better church, and not only in terms of having a more imposing building or breathtaking sanctuary. The spiritual dividends of a building program are rarely sunk by any obstacle or anticipated crisis, no matter how large the temporary challenges and frustrations loom.
For Maynard Nelson and the congregation at Calvary Lutheran, the successful completion of a building program brought “a sense of accomplishment and even a new self-image,” he said. Nelson has challenged the members of his congregation to continue donating the amount of their three-year building fund pledge to support missions.
“Our outreach at home and abroad has quadrupled,” Nelson observed. “The great criticism before we built was, ‘Why are we spending all this money on ourselves?’ But the building program brought with it a strong sense of unity and a desire to serve in the world.”
Meanwhile, at the Falls Church, cardboard scale models in the fellowship hall show how our new sanctuary will look, inside and out. Enthusiasm for the project is growing, while the building committee works out design details with the city council and new fundraising initiations are planned. The stated theme of the program, “To the glory of God,” keeps us centered on what we are doing—and why—as we build.
Beth Spring is a writer and active member of The Falls Church (Episcopal) in Falls Church, Virginia.
Copyright © 2002 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
