The idea of ministry in a coffee shop has been around for some time now. The book that coined the phrase “Third Place” (“The Great Good Place”) was written by Dr. Ray Oldenburg before 1990. We (Cornerstone Knowledge Network) brought Dr. Oldenburg up over six years ago to get his thoughts on churches and third places. He had some compelling insights but the admonition that has stuck with me is, “Third place is not an opportunity for the church; it is a responsibility.” And third places are not limited to coffee shops.

I have a pastor friend, Dave, that has been trying to develop a ministry opportunity in the café around the corner from their offices. It’s a great opportunity but nothing has come together yet. In the midst of trying to make that work, God opened up an entirely unexpected third place:

Dave’s church sponsors a softball team that is made up largely of people that don’t go to church; actually, guys that won’t go to church. Recently one of the guys invited Dave to the local fitness center for a weightlifting fundraiser. He was happy to go but was extremely uncomfortable among the buff and brawn. He realized that’s how these guys feel when they visit a church. He shared this with one of the guys and they both realized how similar the feeling would be. Out of that conversation came the idea of meeting in a room above the fitness center (that Dave didn’t even know existed). Following softball season, they plan to meet there on Tuesday nights. Spiritual conversations in relational space. Very cool.

The coffee shop ministry may still come together but I’m glad he wasn’t so focused on a certain way of doing third place that he missed where God was working. I’m glad his creativity didn’t get in the way of God’s.

That’s never been truer than for the way churches finance capital expenditures today. Gone are the days when you could talk to your local banker and they would bend over backwards to make the loan work. Money is cheap but lending is tight. Capital remains constricted and there is reluctance on the part of many lending institutions to step out when they already have so many under-collateralized commercial loans. Cash is still king but cash flow is the emperor. Banks no longer rely on the pledge of funds and are requiring churches to have a 6 to 12 month history demonstrating the receipts of those pledges. And banks no longer assume the appreciation of real estate values so the Loan-to-Value Ratio (LTV) is more critical and will not likely be able to exceed 75%.

So what changes do churches need to secure the capital they need for expansion? Here are some key strategies financing under the new rules of the game:

1) Be clear: There has never been a more important time than now for churches to have clarity about their vision. The vision and mission must drive the decision as to whether or not new facilities are necessary.

2) Plan ahead: Begin now to develop margin between your income and expenses so you can demonstrate actual ability to carry debt. Even expenses you’re carrying now that you won’t need later can help. For instance, if you’re paying rent on facilities you won’t need when your new facilities are completed, that money can be used to amortize your new loan. NOTHING beats building for cash when you think far enough ahead.

3) Start early: Banks used to be impressed by what was pledged. Now they want to have six to twelve months evidence of the commitments so capital campaigns need to start earlier in the process.

4) Be prudent: It’s important to work with professionals that have adequate experience in serving churches. Missteps can be fatal to a building program. We continue to see projects abandoned because a church trusted a price from a builder or architect that turned out to be too low. At best it put them back to square one; at worst it killed the project and left lingering costs.

5) Consider alternatives: We are seeing an increase in churches funding their needs through bond programs. Bonds often carry higher initial fees but are less expensive for the life of the loan. Consider these and other alternatives for the one that best fit your comprehensive financial plan.

Money is not likely to ever be this cheap so it can be a great time to finance a building program. Use these strategies to move ahead successfully.

That's the question I was asking myself last Friday night as the Allman Brothers took the stage. They have played New York for 40 years and for the last 20 years the Beacon Theater had been their home for nearly 2 weeks of concerts held annually. Even though every show is a sellout, this year they were bumped by the Beacon in favor of Cirque du Soleil. Their search for a new venue took them north of Harlem to the Washington Heights area where they found Christ United Church. The church facility was built in the late 20's originally as a vaudeville theater and was later converted into a movie theater. It fell into disrepair in the 50's and 60's until 1969 when it was purchased by the church. I don't know much about the church but imagine the opportunities to connect with the community by hosting over 3,000 people a night for 12 nights.

Maybe you can't host the Allmans but what could you do with your current and planned facilities? I'm not sure we've even scratched the surface thinking about how to design, build and utilize our facilities to partner with our communities. I know of several churches that loan their facilities overnight to an organization that houses and cares for the homeless. Another built a community fine arts center used by both the church and community. Others operate retail outlets, commercial cafes or restaurants. But that’s just the beginning. What unique ways have you seen churches plan and use their facilities to connect their community to Jesus?

This is no time to bemoan a post-Christendom culture because our opportunities are everywhere. People crave the grace and peace and joy of a life in Jesus. They just need people to find new ways to express the kingdom of God and show them his love. It is time to think differently.

"People can you feel it? Love is everywhere." – from Revival

Recently Dan Kimball posted a message on the “Out of Ur” blog entitled “I Was Wrong About Church Buildings”. It’s a thoughtful reflection on how his attitude has changed since he’s been in a building. If you follow the discussion you’ll find a response from Ken Eastburn of the Well. It’s an interesting discussion about the necessity or convenience of buildings for churches. Below you will find my response to Ken. Feel free to share your thoughts too.

Dear Ken,

I’m not sure what the 1st point “being missional involves more than just being nice to people” has to do with buildings but the 2nd point is certainly germane to buildings (and any other ministry tool). The challenge is whose definition do we use for “convenience” and “necessity”? If Compassion International can feed 50% more children because of the conveniences of the building, I would call that building a necessity. But who makes that call? Would you consider the house you meet in a convenience or necessity and what criteria should we use for making the decision. If a house is a necessity, at what size does the house become a convenience? 2,000 sq ft? 4,000 sq ft? 10,000 sq ft?

I definitely agree that, in general, we have far more church owned facilities than we need to be the church (and many are ill-suited for ministry anyway). And that needs to change because far too many resources are going into consumer-style Christianity. However, we don’t make decisions “in general”; we make them for specific cases. That brings your 3rd point into play. Buildings may be preventing churches from doing what God really wants them to do. The issue for me is not whether it’s called a 2,000 sq ft house, a 4,000 sq ft house, a 10,000 sq ft house, a church-owned facility, a community building, a YMCA, a synagogue, a coffee shop, a theater, a bar, a blues club, or other. The issue is, “Where is God at work in your world and where does he want you to join him and what facility do you need/would work best to accomplish that mission?” Buildings are benign (until they’re occupied), to be used as needed.

I really appreciated your respectful tone. Too often we vilify people with whom we don’t agree. The solution does not reside in any one person; it’s found in the clash and collaboration of ideas and perspectives. I trust you’ll receive my comments above as the next step in a process of working toward an understanding together.