Thanks for this insightful post, Dan. Like you, I'm sure many of us, myself included, have gone from one end of the pendulum to another in response to some of the things we grew up with in traditional evangelical churches.

I think you're right on here, but I guess the question is how do you measure what is "non-essential, luxury" item when it comes to a church building?

For me a more pragmatic and measurable approach is to work in percentages. I personally like to see building costs be 15-20% of a churches budget, and to have a church carry as little debt as possible.

The tragedy is when a building starts impinging on our ability to minister rather than help. Keeping a proper percentage of our budget allocated towards those costs is helpful in preventing that.

I have had a similar experience. I remember in an undergrad Bible class having a professor question whether more comfortable seats can be considered "tithe worthy." In other words, he questioned if we can see that as part of the day to day budget. I still don't know how far to take these things.

I think Dan has a really interesting point that is reasonable controversial (at least in the tradition), that church aesthetics and design is driven by mission rather than worship or proclamation or something else. I think that point is worth spending a good deal of time meditating on.

Dan stated some very good missional objectives for which they found a way to make the building "fit" into the mission. That's the way it should be. The example of Compassion International is probably another one--they had a mission and the building came on the back side of the mission itself and was constructed to meet the needs of the mission.
That's exactly how I feel all building programs should come to fruition.

Our cart-before-the-horse mentality fixes itself on the externals (outward appearances) before there are any actual internals (a sense of God-mandated mission). What happens is that these externals are seldom sustainable without the purpose. If our purpose is a vague as just starting another church, one has to question its validity in God's ultimate will for us.

But, if we come together around a purposeful mission, everything else will naturally adapt to that mission, including the building, if indeed a building becomes essential at all.

As an entrepreneur, all of my business endeavors in the past couple of years have been planned to meet specific missional objectives. It's been the most transforming experience of my life. The attitude and motivation behind my employees and contractors is amazing.

I'd have to push-back a little on Dan's new views. Whilst I agree (whilst is my new favorite word, even if I don't use it properly) that the building serves mission, consider that most churches build with tremendous debt burdens. We then panic when offerings drop and we can no longer maintain our gigantic mortgage. I see this as one of the potential strengths of the multi-site strategy. It allows specific locations to be more fluid in responses to the needs and growth of a community. Your example of the Compassion building is interesting. I live close to that building and know they only use a small % of the space. Does that mean they overbuilt? Not necessarily, but it does make me wonder if there is a more effective way to work together as a "church" on a national level.
I know that the T.K. guys recently acquired a building and have gone through some similar progression of revolt-repent-repurpose.
Furthermore, I don't see how the building made the housing of victims from the fires possible, do people in the community not have extra bedrooms or basements in their homes?
I feel like there isn't a "right" answer - buildings are neither right nor wrong inherently; it's how one sees it fitting into the overall mission that matters, and it sounds like Vintage is heading in the right direction with its building.

Sean,

I totally understand your concern about debt and church buildings and all. It is sad when churches get overwhelmed and consumed with building debt! But I would view it to be the same as we would in buying a home. You need to do so with careful planning, not go into unbalanced debt or make irrational purchases. There are homeowners who made unwise choices in the amount of debt they got into - and there are homeowners who made reasonable nd wise choices for the homes they got into debt-wise.

The building we are in is 100% debt free, so for us it was something we could do and pay for without any borrowing any money for the improvements we have been having to make.

Anyway, I believe in the concern you are raising, but I don't think it is a blanket statement for all debt - or we shouldn't then borrow for our own homes either.

I love multi-site churches too, but all the ones I know do have some sort of base they function from, normally one church building they own - and then launch other sites that are rented just on Sundays. At least in the several I know of.

And my point in the article wasn't even about debt or buying - it was using buildings in general (whether we rent or buy). Thanks for the insight!

The debt burden is usually the red flag for me. Of course, I am a big cash-based operations guy. Short term operating loans on secured debt is as far as I go into borrowing. It makes me much more flexible, and my commitment to it has caused me to become a much more efficient steward of what God gives me.

Since, essentially, my business funds my missional work, I have the blessing of being able to develop business plans that meet the projected needs of the mission. I do have plans for a church in the building plan, but the services will be held in part of a building that is being purchased (with cash) that will be generating income for the business and serving as a logistical center for the mission.

The reason I said in my previous post regarding the Compassion building, that it was probably an example of a missional building, is because I was thinking like Sean B, that it was likely overkill.

We are a wasteful lot, and it is too easy to let pomp and circumstance go to our heads. None of us are free from the temptation. But, times they are a changing. This economic mess should be teaching the church some lessons we should have learned a long time ago. If we learn those lessons, the finest hour of the Church may be a head of us.

Hmm,
I will not dispute the missonal, as well as congregational services permitting a group of people to effectively commit their resources to evangelism, support, and central gathering.
What I will dispute is when is enough...enough?
I will use your post Dan as a foil for what is currently happening in my church.
My church is gearing up for a "phase II" building in which the elders and the pastoral staff presented a magnificent edifice for the members of the congregation to vote on.
The majority said yay.
I said nay.
You see, the way I see it is that we're approaching luxurious extravagance in our buildings with all the Hooo-Ahhhh, boffo, neato stuff that makes every one go, "oh yeah, this place rocks!"
What we have is good enough, but then the first phase was completed and I will admit, it's nice, and the coffee shop, like yours, is drawing in non-Christians.
But like I said, what he had was good enough...but now, the church is gearing up for phase II and I'm thinking, "When will enough be enough?"
I personally think the American church has spent billions on land, buildings, and upgrades...if not trillions.
My concern is will G-d call us to account for the outlandish outlay of resources on ourselves?

"My concern is will G-d call us to account for the outlandish outlay of resources on ourselves?"

/sigh,
should have proof read it before posting.
Should read...
"My concern is will G-d call us to account for the outlandish outlay of resources we have spent on ourselves?"

Dan said: [The building we are in is 100% debt free, so for us it was something we could do and pay for without any borrowing any money for the improvements we have been having to make.]

There's the sign I was looking for! :)

These are the kinds of examples the Church at large need to follow. Congratulations!

It's difficult to answer the "When is enough, enough?" question without considering the universal church. Most churches across the world are blessed to have a roof over their own heads, let alone the heads of a gathering of tens or hundreds.
I think we have to certainly consider HOW we use our building space and WHO it's primarily for. The building (worship space) and sign of God's presence and the place where others are drawn to encounter him. I love the example Dan uses of a Buddhist recommending the church to a friend because he trusts the people he meets at the coffee house. That is not likely to happen if the building is just for weekend gatherings or for members only. When we think building usage, we ought to think God and surrounding community first.

Nice post, Dan. I take a church's view of its building as a litmus test for the strength of its doctrine of creation. We were made to live in a material world, and we were specifically tasked to make something of that world (as Andy Crouch says it). A semi-gnostic view says the building doesn't matter at all, only 'spiritual' values matter. A new creation Christianity says everything we do and build matters. It says something about God. It says something about our mission. It adds beauty or ugliness to our world, and the world of our neighbors.

"These missional opportunities would not be possible without a building."

Bogus. This statement only demonstrates thinking that is cemented in wealthy American institutionalist assumptions. Worldwide compassion, or reaching any age group can be done without special buildings. Any ministry for anywhere in the world can be done from existing homes, parks, sidewalks, or Christian owned business buildings.

One of the biggest reasons for the cement around this kind of thinking is that leaders use this dynamic to take their salary out of the offering plate. They pedestalize their skills and presume their ministry must be done with 100% of their time and call it "full-time ministry". The rest of the saints are just laymen.

As time goes by I am more convinced that this kind of thinking will only die when the American economy is trashed. Only then will these leaders think outside the cement. The scriptural basis is there for all the Bible experts to see, but they will rationalize their way around it to keep their pedestalized spiritual status. Dan almost made it beyond the cement, but alas...

I've heard a statistic that between between 90 - 99% of the money given for the work of God is spent in the U.S. primarily for crowd oriented/non-personal relationship venues for witness and body building dominated by hired experts with lay folks sitting around watching and clapping. The wealthy American institutionalized system is the cause of this tragedy. Call it missional if you want. God has used it and may continue to, but He expects a better ROI on our "giving". I'm not a sucker for this system any more. That may be said a little too strongly for some, but I'm not trying to get anyone to pay my salary.

"'I've heard a statistic that between between 90 - 99% of the money given for the work of God is spent in the U.S. primarily for crowd oriented/non-personal relationship venues for witness and body building dominated by hired experts with lay folks sitting around watching and clapping"

Okay, perhaps I can call your bluff... Bogus. Can you cite a source, or is this made up? Dan speaks from the experience of engaging in missional practices and how the building is vital to it. Are you arguing against his experience? Perhaps if you are in his town and know his space you can. Otherwise, your statement (including the made up statistic) is bogus.

Thanks, Dan. Our building is pretty missional, too!

If you have no building, how can you let AA meet in the basement?

Buildings can be awesome. In the case of many churches, they use their buildings to further the cause of Christ in amazing ways.

In the case of others, they've built a giant mausoleum for God.

I've been to such churches. The building, the result of a never-ending building fund, was the product of a congregation that felt four services each Sunday meant it was time for a bigger sanctuary. (I feel in many cases, that actually means it's time for the church to multiply; I'll leave the debate for church plants versus multi-sites for another place.) Churches being the organisms they are, sometimes contract when the Spirit is doing more in another group—leaving a too-small congregation with a too-costly facility. If they're wise, they'll use their resources to facilitate a like-minded group, as First Presbyterian did with Vintage Faith.

But not every church is so wise. For some, the building turns into an idol to maintain. That's an easy snare to fall into, and it's just as easy to critique buildings as the problem when it's really just buildings-centered Christianity that's the problem.

Peter
I can't cite the source. I believe it came from Frontiers. I can site Leadership Journals stat on "normal" giving in typical local church - 16% goes out the door. I saved the graphic chart on this. This stat does not include the millions of capital campaign "giving" building, rebuilding facilities that benefit mostly the "givers". This isn't giving. It's pooling. God knows the difference. Institutional leaders don't seem to.

"Are you arguing against his experience?"
Yes. His experience does not prove his point that you can't do these ministries without "church" facilities. His experience only proves that God can use them. This does not prove that God has pointed us this way, nor that there are more strategic ways.

One thing I know, its far more important to pour resources into sending the gospel where millions have no one to tell them within a days journey, than to multiply resources into expert driven, campus focused efforts to give the gospel to those who have rejected it many times, or who have immediate relational connections with saints who can tell them personally, and so saints can get a weekly Bible lecture in a cushioned pew every week. What a waste.

In Dan's own books he states that unbelievers are highly skeptical of institutionalized forms of church life. Why systematize "outreach" that expects the lost to come into our buildings to hear truth. Why not focus witness on their turf. When saints have poured tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions into church "witness facilities", their hearts will be tied to facility witness. "Where your treasure is there will you heart be also." It's a law of the heart. It's lousy stewardship of God's resources we are to manage.

Peter
I googled "percentage of giving to missions". Right at the top were several sites that spoke to many ways of seeing that American believers giving is SEVERLY warped or polluted.

http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/missions_giving/Giving_and_the_Great_Commission.shtml

"According to the U.S. Center for World Missions, only 5.7 percent of giving to Christian causes goes to foreign missions. Of that, 87 percent goes for work among those who are already Christians, 12 percent for work among already evangelized non-Christians, and 1 percent for work among people groups who are unevangelized or unreached. Americans spend far more on pet food—and chewing gum!—than on the cause of world missions. "

Dans trifling experiential justification for this pathetic systemic approach to God's Work is only proof of the power of man's traditions to "nullify the commands of God" and to call it "corban" (dedicated to God) Mark 7:7-13. His previous convictions were true are are obvious even to those are unbelievers who have no faith.

I am not sure Dan is addresses the debt issue, or amount of money spent for this or that. But a style of worship, or removing excuses for those who wont step foot in a "church". - judgmental, rigid structure...

Glad that Dan is listening, instead of saying - This is how we got fed!

Thanks for removing the business of church from church, and making it a place to grow a relationship with Christ.

Hi Tim!

Thanks for the further comments. I believe I am understanding your primary statement of that mission and ministry can happen outside of church buildings. I fully agree! So much of relationship building, trust, friendships etc. with those outside the church do happen outside the church buildings.

But then I am SO thankful we have a space to then have to bring them to in addition to our homes and places we meet during the week. Having a sanctuary where several hundred people can gather together at once, having the coffeehouse going during the week - are things that then people do end up appreciating and so much ministry can happen (in addition to what happens outside of the church building).

This Friday we have a leadership appreciation night where over 100 leaders will gather from our church who are leading various areas of ministry. I am glad we have a space to seat that many people. One of the people sharing will be a fellow who is 27 years old and just became a Christian 3 weeks ago. He will be sharing his story and thanking all those who serve in our church in various ways.

His story is that he developed friendships with people who were Christians when he wasn't. That all happened outside the church building. He also went to some home meetings that happen during the week (outside the church building). But then he began going to the larger meetings, seeing hundreds of others his age - experiencing worship in a larger group, interacting with a ton of more people, he attended a class we offered (in the church building) etc.

So of course so much of ministry and relationships happen outside of the building! But I am thankful we have the space to use to then bring someone to for larger meetings, the coffeehouse, classes, experiencing the community at large (not just in the home in a smaller setting) - which then allows this 20-something to learn, meet more people, learn and worship in a larger setting in addition to the smaller settings - and he is now joining a ministry team which does meet both in our building and outside the building.

I am just sharing that - as I don't think we should be thinking that ministry can't happen without church building (it certainly can!) but it also can happen and there are some advantages because of having larger meetings spaces which enables more relationships to happen and all types of other things - that I am glad we also have a building too!

I also never, ever have experienced a non-Christian who was turned off by the building or refused to come AFTER relationships were developed. Every single one I have met always appreciates and doesn't question that the church meets in a building! They then come to meetings there, the coffeehouse etc. and lives are changed both in the building and throughout the week wheverever they meet!

We just held a Fair Trade fair when Trade As One set up a whole big set up and I am glad we were able to use the building for that. We could have rented a space somewhere else - as a larger space was needed than a home. But thankfully we were able to use our church building and so many people came from the community and the church - and lives were aided across the globe from being able to set up in a church building.

OK. Hope that makes sense! I do appreciate totally what you are saying, but I think churches can use building in healthy ways and also there are positive examples of churches who don't go into overwhelming debt - and many churches rent too. My original post was not about buying or renting, it was just using buildings in general.

Peace in Jesus,

Dan

"the space that had been powerfully missional in the 1930s and '40s was transformed to reflect missional values of the 21st century" says Dan.

Interesting use of the word "missional" to reference both traditional and contemporary approaches to church life.

Dan, Thanks for this perspective! I myself have vacilated on the importance/necessity of buildings for ministry. I think one of the important points to catch in your post is that for us to be good stewards we must utilize these facilities for more than just a sunday experience. They need to be open for life to happen in them as often as possible!

Hi Dan
Thanks for your personal reply.
"I believe I am understanding your primary statement of that mission and ministry can happen outside of church buildings."
No you missed my points. You may need to read what I said again.
1. I was saying your statement that these missional opportunities would not be possible with out a building was false.
2. I stated that ministry can happen in special buildings. However this does not justify the huge expense or all the connecting counterproductive behavior that goes along with them such as pedestalizing paid leaders (much more expense), large percentages of spectating, leadership perpetual dependency rather than reproductivity and entrusting, crowd oriented hoopla that weakens the commitment needed for full one another life, and many more.
3. With your assumptions, there is no longer any line that you can draw between your ministry and the Disneyland type. When you or the saints feel they don't fit in your paid for place, they will build a bigger one and on and on. Renting will probably cost the same but with different cash flow. The percentage of resources that flows out of your institution to reach all nations will be no different than that of the 5000 seat / 40 paid staff institution. It will be between 16 - 25% - short of a huge miracle of grace. You will devote 75 - 85% of giving to reach and build YOUR town, even though there are THOUSANDS of saints who can do that and the annual harvest may be a few hundred at most. You will allocate 14 - 25% of giving to reach the rest of the world where the harvest could be thousands and there is no one there to do it. This is a missional travesty.

"I am SO thankful we have a space.."
"Having a sanctuary where several hundred people can gather together at once..."
"...100 leaders will gather from our church"
"...he began going to the larger meetings, seeing hundreds of others his age - experiencing worship in a larger group, interacting with a ton of more people..."

You are excited with larger gatherings. You feel they are essential. You feel your ministry is stronger because of it. I assert you are weaker because of it. Believers consuming their own "giving" is flesh driven not faith driven. I think you are content with a smaller harvest. I think you are investing too much by sight and not enough by faith. Most of your kindred spirits are in the same system. The scriptures that are twisted to justify the system are cleverly done. The web of tradition wrapped around them is very strong and tight.

There is no clear Biblical basis for crowd gatherings so one guy can "interact with tons of people." The power of spiritual transformation is revealed to flow through mutual intimacy not social shotgunning. You can meet "a ton of people" much better in networked small groups than in big group sessions. I know you have small groups that meet for free. You are not content with this. The cost is huge.

In all of this I am not saying buildings should never be used for any kind of ministry. I am saying there are far fewer reasons for the special building investment and the leadership system that usually tags along than American leaders are willing to admit. The results in American giving are very very sad. That may be a weak statement. Maybe I should they are sinful and idolatrous.

Hello Folks! This is your Good Morning Planet Earth radio talk show! Let me start the ball rolling with our Good News-Bad News ice breaker.

The Good News:

Willow Creek's state-of-the-art Worship Center is complete. It seats over 7,200 people making it over twice as large as the Kodak Theater in Hollywood and the largest theater in the United States.

It is the first church in the world to make use of two Mitsubishi Diamond Vision high-definition LED screens 14' x 24' in size, usually seen in new sports stadiums. Each screen is movable on its own track system and can be combined into one giant screen. The Worship Center also has innovative dual, stacked-deck balconies. The cost: $73 million.

This surpasses the $48 million City Harvest Church building cost, but falls a bit short of eclipsing the $75 million Lakewood Church renovation.

The Bad News:

According to the United Nations, about 25,000 people die everyday of hunger or hunger-related causes. This is one person every three and a half seconds.

Yet there is plenty of food in the world for everyone according to the report. The problem is that hungry people are trapped in severe poverty. They lack the money to buy enough food to nourish themselves. Being constantly malnourished, they become weaker and often sick. This makes them increasingly less able to work, which then makes them even poorer and hungrier. This downward spiral often continues until death for them and their families.

By the way, according to the United Nations, it is children who die most often.

Folks, let's take a breather, by listening to this oldy-but-goldy Barbra Streisand's song:

"People, people who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world
We're children, needing other children..."

Wow...

It is true that some buildings are what we might term excessive, but most churches I have seen this is not the case. Buildings do a lot for a church in identity, in building a light house in a community, in creating a spring board for mission. Many buildings are underused.

As for moeny spent on buidlings being given to the poor, this is a sham argument. If you want to give money to the poor, then do it. Hold yourself to the same standard. Take public transit and give the money you would use on a car to the poor. Live in a studio apartment and give the money you would spend on a house to the poor. Wear used clothing and give the money you save to the poor. Skip coffee, sodas, dining out and eat 1 meal a day and give the money you save to the poor. Give up internet, movies, concerts, cable and about a zillion other things and give the money you save to the poor.

Here is the big difference. At least a church like Willow gives away a huge amount each year and the money spent on buildings is used on building that house those who worship God, while the money I spend on me is for me.

"If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:3

Leonard, let's love the poor.

Dan - Excellent post!

I applaud the missional focus! If your church is preaching the gospel, welcoming (and seeking!) the lost, and being "light and salt", then you are right on target. Heaven forbid that we actually be relevant!

Should we stay in budget? Certainly.
Avoid debt? As much as possible.
But you can't have a corporate gathering in a home. You can't host AA meetings without a building. You can't have classes in a coffee shop. And if you don't have a dedicated physical building, how do people know where to find you?!

Great job Vintage Faith Church!
Thanks for the post Dan.