Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Building decisions...
Most of you know by now that I am not a big fan of buildings and budgets. So I keep getting asked how I feel about Southern Hills big project we introduced last Sunday. Let me start by sharing my concerns. I am always amazed by how much we will spend to build buildings. I can't help but imagine what we could do if we would commit the same amount of resources to missions. I also worry that we sometimes see building as the answer to our problems. I don't think an expanded foyer makes for a warm, friendly church extending fellowship to everyone in sight. Is that a little like opening your home for fellowship as soon as you get a big enough, or nice enough, house? If you don't have people over now, a bigger house won't help. I am not sure making a building more "visitor friendly" really results in non-believers being introduced to Jesus. I just don't think people decide to show up at church and find Jesus. I think that happens because of relationships. It may help when visiting sheep are looking for greener pastures, but I am not sure we want to be in that business. I just think buildings say come to us when maybe the emphasis ought to be on going to them.
However, I am supporting the building campaign. And here is why: in spite of my reservations, it is a good idea. I do think intentional buildings can facilitate fellowship and evangelism. If we are evangelists, and if we are a true fellowship, this building proposal will help us be more effective. Second, there are people who will give to a building before they would give to missions. That bothers me, and I wish it was not true...but I am a realist. Most of our congregation seems enthused by these plans. We will see if they put their money where their mouth is. Our elders support this program and I trust them. They want what is best for the kingdom and best for Southern Hills. Our votes are rarely unanimous, but our decisions are always unanimous. I believe our eldership to be Spirit led and this is our decision. So even if I wasn't an elder, I would still trust this eldership to do what is best for the Kingdom. After all, I may not always be right about everything (as hard as that is to admit). Finally, our staff believes this is important. I trust our staff. They are spiritual, smart, passionate, and intentional about reaching the lost.
These are just my initial thoughts. I would love to hear yours, from Southern Hills members, or from those who have survived building programs elsewhere.
However, I am supporting the building campaign. And here is why: in spite of my reservations, it is a good idea. I do think intentional buildings can facilitate fellowship and evangelism. If we are evangelists, and if we are a true fellowship, this building proposal will help us be more effective. Second, there are people who will give to a building before they would give to missions. That bothers me, and I wish it was not true...but I am a realist. Most of our congregation seems enthused by these plans. We will see if they put their money where their mouth is. Our elders support this program and I trust them. They want what is best for the kingdom and best for Southern Hills. Our votes are rarely unanimous, but our decisions are always unanimous. I believe our eldership to be Spirit led and this is our decision. So even if I wasn't an elder, I would still trust this eldership to do what is best for the Kingdom. After all, I may not always be right about everything (as hard as that is to admit). Finally, our staff believes this is important. I trust our staff. They are spiritual, smart, passionate, and intentional about reaching the lost.
These are just my initial thoughts. I would love to hear yours, from Southern Hills members, or from those who have survived building programs elsewhere.
Comments:
<< Home
Building seems to bring out the worst in people. "I don't like that color", "Who picked that out", "Why did they spend the money on that." The complaints seem to never end. Beyond that hassle, I lean towards building bigger as not better. Bigger seems to simply complicate all aspects of ministry. Have you all considered splitting off a smaller congregation to evangelize a hurting neighborhood?
# posted by 
: 12:28 PM PST
: 12:28 PM PST
Wow, bev has great points! And I definitely agree that building bigger isn't always better and may, in fact, be worse. However, it isn't as if we are trying to expand our auditorium to accomodate the crowds -- we're simply trying to make the rest of the church work and a place to fellowship. I'm all for it, and, yes, I already see some things I would have done differently had they asked me! :-) But, I know Steve never knows he gets comments, but I appreciate him asking anyway! :-)
I am thrilled! I am all for missions, my feelings are we are not creating as much as we are fixing. There will be new spaces to make the building accessable and not some weird maze that one must study for 2 years to figure out how to get from one side to the other. And the playground, well that is about the most needed part, why didn't we do that about 20 years ago? That is what happens when a church building is built in stages over 50 years.
Wow- this is a tough question that probably most church members are faced with if they stay in one place long enough to see growth through numbers. I've visited many churches of all sizes and monetary means over the last 5 years of traveling due to my job. Some of them are warm and inviting and others are a monument unto themselves (Ft. Worth). If done appropriately, I think you can achieve both relevance and significance for everyone, but it takes careful planning.
As for the missions argument, I'm afraid the world in which we live in today trumps the world we lived in 50 years ago when Missions played a more vital role in EVERY church. Look at a church's budget breakdown and one quickly learns where said church's priorities lie. Today it may be buildings, tomorrow it may be domestic programs, next week it may be about children's homes. (The piece of the budget pie for Missions either shrinks or stays the same each year for nearly all churches as internal priorities take over. Sad- but true!)
If you post about needing a Youth Bldg. I may weigh in on that subject as well! ;-)
Post a Comment
As for the missions argument, I'm afraid the world in which we live in today trumps the world we lived in 50 years ago when Missions played a more vital role in EVERY church. Look at a church's budget breakdown and one quickly learns where said church's priorities lie. Today it may be buildings, tomorrow it may be domestic programs, next week it may be about children's homes. (The piece of the budget pie for Missions either shrinks or stays the same each year for nearly all churches as internal priorities take over. Sad- but true!)
If you post about needing a Youth Bldg. I may weigh in on that subject as well! ;-)
<< Home
