Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Strange But True":
Perhaps Dr. Jackson or one of the wise blog readers can help me with this, as it has truly been a difficult issue for me over the years, particularly when building projects are proposed.
My conservative nature leans towards understated buildings, not wanting to "waste" money on materials. On the other hand, I can see how so many churches of the past spared no expense to glorify God. Should no grand churches or cathedrals exist?
Wasn't the Temple of Solomon constructed based on specific plans given to King David, by God? Were these plans not grand in every sense? Did God have an "edifice complex", which promoted idolatry, or did it glorify God?
EC
***
GJ - An important corrective is the passage about "count the cost."
KJV Luke 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? 29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him.
What I observed, and others also saw, was the spending of millions on buildings as if that would turn around a failing church or college. There is obviously a clever combine of building people and fund-raisers who use their synodical affiliation to promote profitable ventures for themselves. They leave behind a costly project that will take decades to pay off. The buildings themselves are liabilities, because they use up more insurance fees, utilities, and other maintenance costs. If everyone can afford it, fine.
A common way to manipulate people is to use the logical fallacy called Special Pleading. There is only one way to look at the situation. Anyone who disagrees is negative, pessimistic, against growth, stingy, short-sighted, and welcome to leave (after signing a pledge). That kind of vision got WELS into buying Prairie du Chien from the Roman Catholics. It failed as a Roman Catholic school, then failed as a Lutheran school. Now it is a prison.
One can find the same kind of thinking in Werning's soporific books, largely copied from his Fuller mentors. Werning promoted the idea that everyone has to spend a lot of money to having a growing church. Werning, for reasons unknown to me, has had a lot of influence on WELS and the Little Sect on the Prairie.
Frugality may find a place again.
---
rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "Question on Buildings":
My former congregation embarked on a rather significant expansion. There were the usual Church Growth tactics employed to get the members on board. Before they really ratcheted up the appeals, they were having in home "Ambassador Briefings" hosted by members. It was then that I smelled a rat because they were using Waldo Werning material.
***
GJ - I think they were still playing 78 RPM records the last time Werning had a congregation. But that is the definition of an expert in the LCMS - the longer he is away from pastoral duties, the more he is esteemed.
---
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Question on Buildings":
In the parishes I served as pastor (WELS), I have used the following principles with building projects.
First, there has to be a clear need for the building, a need which clearly fits in with the mission of the church.
Second, the people should be asking for the building to be built, rather than it coming from a council, board, or committee. By "the people," I mean people from all segments of the congregation -- the younger families, the retirees (who often pay for most of the building), the middle-aged couples, etc. A building project needs "the people" behind it.
Third, at least one fourth of the cost of the building should be raised in advance of groundbreaking. This lowers the debt, shows the seriousness of the people in wanting the building, and gets people giving toward the project in advance which makes absorbing the debt easier.
Fourth, plan on paying off the building in five to ten years, well before the next capital project is needed.
Fifth, do not build the best building "for God," but build the best building "for God" with the resources available.
Sixth, borrow as much money as possible at the lowest interest rate possible from members -- in a legal way.
Seventh, let everyone possible have input, but also have a cut-off date, clearly publicized, after which no further input will be accepted.
Using these guidelines really works. The last building project I was involved with was a very large auxiliary building. It was "state of the art" construction and was paid off in a year and a half after dedication. The last capital project I was involved with was a $100,000 church improvement. Some money was raised within six months of the purchase and the rest was paid off within six months after the purchase. At the same time, we paid off $200,000 in debt. The church with the building had a large school, funded by the church and a small minority of non-members. We always met our budget. It is my experience that following these principles for building projects not only gets buildings built efficiently, but also increases giving to the budget.
***
GJ - The advice above is much better than the crack-highs of "build it and they will come." The outline shows establishing a clear need, keeping the plans reasonable, and not becoming a debt slave.
Many mega churches are in foreclosure now, including the humorously named Church Without Walls. They owe tens of millions on the walls, and the pastor's ex-wife has taken over.
---
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Question on Buildings":
While I agree wholeheartedly with all the comments listed above, it should also be stated that GJ, for example, was saddled with a WEF (Water Electricity & Flush Toilets) unit in Columbus that many people truly thought was a gas station, and it did hinder visitor traffic. I've preached in churches where the final cost-cutting measure before the blueprints were finally approved, as lowering the ceiling to a depressing depth which ruined acoustics. Apart from aesthetic issues, the church building in these cases proclaimed a theological conviction much akin to church growth philosophy--namely "Function, function, function" as opposed to the Lutheran belief that this is all about God, not about us.
So yes, by all means, a church should build within its means, but that might mean a smaller facility with a bell tower, rather than a massive Assemblies of God type pole barn!
***
GJ - How well I remember. Norm Berg, Fuller alumnus, wanted to build a lot of ugly missions so he could brag about Church Growth. I had nothing to do with building that WEF. It was not cheap, but it was cheaply built. Tim Glende used to make fun of it, calling it "That ugly litle WEF." At least we did not rock and roll in a movie theater.
---
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Question on Buildings":
If I recall correctly, WELS pioneered the WEF (Water Electricity & Flush Toilets) facilities stressing quantity over quality. They were overpriced and a devil to heat in the winter. Some architect sold WELS a bill of goods.
***
GJ - Before WEFs, WELS built chapels that were fairly attractive, although sometimes built in the oddest, secret locations. I saw interesting parallels between LCA and WELS mission blunders. Both groups fell hard for Church Growth and suffered from trying to emulate the Assemblies of God or whatever else was hot at the moment.
Now it can be told - the entire leadership of WELS went supine for the Cancerous Growth Movement.
