A church building project is a significant endeavor, one that requires careful planning, commitment, and a substantial financial investment. Over our 50-plus years in business, we’ve witnessed the many pitfalls church leaders can encounter during the church design and building process. By sharing these experiences, we hope to help current church leaders avoid the same mistakes.
One common issue that we sometimes see is church leaders not keeping their options open when planning and presenting a church building project. Taking a rigid approach can lead to unnecessary delays and increased costs. Here, we share two cautionary tales that illustrate the importance of flexibility.
The Cost of Hard and Fast Promises
In the first example, a church decided to include a condition in their church resolution: they would only proceed with construction once they had 50% of the project’s cost in hand. The intention was to be fiscally responsible and avoid excessive debt. The church launched a three-year capital campaign, and pledges started coming in. Despite their best efforts, however, they were only able to raise 45% of the needed funds—just shy of their goal.
But, because they hadn’t met the 50% promise, construction couldn’t begin. Once the initial campaign expired, church leaders conducted another vote to move forward without the 50% condition. This time, the vote passed. However, the three-year delay had taken its toll. Over those years, construction costs had increased significantly, adding an additional $900,000 to the project. This increase was a direct result of the church’s initial hard and fast promise. While the church eventually got its building, the cost was far higher than it had to be.
The Difficulty of Promising Not to Borrow
In another scenario, church leadership made a promise to the congregation before church design planning even began that they would not borrow any money to fund the new church building project. This seemed like a prudent decision, especially since the leaders wanted to avoid long-term debt. However, as the planning progressed, it became clear that they needed more funds than they could raise themselves to fully meet the needs of their church design.
Leadership proposed borrowing the necessary money to complete the project but faced resistance from a few members. Their objection was rooted in the promise that had been made not to borrow. Consequently, the church had to scale back its design significantly, only building a portion of what they had initially envisioned.
Now, with a completed church building that doesn’t fulfill all leaders’ vision for ministry, a future revote will be needed to continue with additional phases. This piecemeal approach will be more costly and time-consuming than if they had reasonably borrowed initially to complete the project in one phase. The leadership’s commitment to avoiding debt—a commendable goal—ended up as a financial burden in the long run.
Keeping Your Options Open
These scenarios highlight a common theme: the importance of keeping options open during the planning and execution of church building projects. Adhering to initial promises or conditions before all the facts are available can lead to delays, higher costs, and scaled-down projects.
At the McKnight Group, we’re committed to helping churches navigate the complexities of building projects. To learn more about effective church building strategies and how to avoid common pitfalls, we invite you to take part in our free i3 webinars. Sign up on our website.