Bigger Might Be Better, But It'll Get You Into Lots of Problems
So recently, I started my new job working at Family Community Church in San Jose. FCC is one of the fastest-growing churches in Silicon Valley, which is definately a great thing. I definately feel as though the church is a place that God is using to transform people's lives. There are so many people, in fact, that we have a big problem.
They don't fit.
We tried adding services, but who wants to come to church at 5 a.m. on Sunday morning or 1:30 p.m. Thursday afternoon. Church growth experts always tell you: Maximum seats at optimal invitation hours. You need more empty chairs during weekend services that are at times when people can invite their friends. Which means Sundays from around 9-11. And sometimes Saturday night.
So, my church, FCC, is in the middle of a 12 million dollar building campaign. That might seem like a lot, but keep in mind that a nice, good sized house in this area goes for nearly a million. The whole thing started in October of 2003, when our head pastor, Pastor Bill, started looking for a bigger property to move into, and we found one.
We found a steal of a deal from a company that was going bankrupt and needed cash quick. We bought a GIANT property for 8 million dollars. Ours is worth about 4 million dollars, just to give you an idea. This place is 11 times bigger, and could accomodate a weekly attendance of about 9,000 people. Right now, we're about 2,800.
So we bought it. Because it was like buying a brand new Honda Accord for 5K. It was like, "What's the catch?" But there wasn't one.
Now we needed a loan for 4 million more to buy the place, plus 4 million more to put in seats, build offices, etc, etc. because the place was just a shell of a building. Nothing inside.
But we couldn't get a loan that big. So we raised 2 million dollars through tithing in a few months, and then used that as collateral, and then Bank of America gave us the money. So we have a loan for 8 million, plus the 4 million we're going to get when we sell our place, which we have already done to this other church.
So this is a 12 million dollar thing.
And all in time for Easter 2005.
But wait.
I know what you're thinking. It's already Easter 2005. That's passed? What's going on. Coupla things.
1. The City of San Jose didn't want a church buying a building that large in the middle of an industrial complex. Cities are all about making money, and if FCC occupied prime industrial real estate then a: some commerical merchant, who would pay millions in taxes, couldn't and b: they would get NO money from us, since it's a church and is non-profit. So they denied us what's called a "building permit."
2. So we showed them that legally, they couldn't do what they were doing. Cities cannot deny churches real estate unless they provide a reasonable alternative. Since we were getting the building so cheap, there was nothing they could do.
3. Meanwhile, you can't legally buy a property without a building permit, and the company that wanted to sell was like, "Hello? You buying this or what" So FCC had to agree to pay 50,000 a month as a form of "layaway" for this building until we could purchase it.
4. This went on for six months. That's 300K, out the window. Plus, now we're six months behind.
5. So we finally had the building permit. Now the fire inspector said that we were a convention center, and that the Power Company's Gas Line was too close to our building for it's intended use. So we had to wait another month and pay 80,000 dollars for a specialist to say, "This gas line isn't going to explode." By the way, that same gas line ran underneath my old house that I lived in with Jon in downtown San Jose.
6. Then the price of steel went through the roof. Iraq happened, and all the US and international steel prices tripled because of war-time stuff, like reconstruction from all the bombs we dropped. Kind of like oil, now, reaching 60 dollars a barrel today when normally it's around 40. So we had to re-draw our plans wirth architects using less steel. This took another month.
7. Meanwhile, we haven't built anything in our building. Finally, last month we started building. But then...
8. Fire inspectors inspected our plans and determined that with so many people in one place, it wasn't a church anymore with church code specs, but rather a convention center. This was exactly the opposite of what they'd told us before. So we had to halt construction, build some new fire walls, and get the plans approved.
9. We did everything the city asked, but the person who can approve our plans is on vacation for the next two weeks, so we can't get signed off so we can re-begin construction.
So we're looking at Nov-Dec of this year. And I think maybe even that's pushing it.
It's really quite terrible. I am blogging all this because I have seen now, because I work at this place, the amount of time that Pastor Bill has to spend on this building project. It's more than a full-time job, and he's a got a volunteer staff of about 10 people working on it full-time too.
It's just a shame.
6 Comments:
My church (San Jose First Church of the Nazarene, soon to be known as "The Point Church of the Nazarene"), is undergoing similar travails, albeit on about a tenth the scale you mention. We're building a $10 million building in Evergreen that will seat 900 or so in the main sanctuary. We also will have quite a bit of room elsewhere for multiple congregations: we currently have ministries for Cambodian, Hispanic, Korean and Filipino congregations. The ministries are separated because they are in the native tongues of the respective congregants.
The City of San Jose doesn't like churches, and our experience with the planning commission and with the inspectors sounds very similar to yours. One of the interesting items from our battle with the city over this building was that there was a dispute over the placement of the building. The city didn't want it at the top of the slope (where it is now, actually) because they didn't want it to "stand out on the skyline" And also, there was a lot of control over the architecture so it the building would fit into the prevailing architecture (which is largely a Southwestern motif in that area: shades of brown and rust, mainly) What is amusing about that is that our building is about a half mile from the infamous Sikh temple, which was approved a couple of years before our project and which does not fit into the motif.
If you stand on White Road a bit North of Aborn and look East, you can clearly see both buildings (ours is the one to the right). I'd be interested in impressions about which building "stands out" more!
Anyway, we are months if not weeks away from occupancy. The 1.5 year project has taken almost three years with the attendant cost overruns, and it's there are lots of problems yet to solve. But nothing like this is ever free of difficulties, Dave, so you're not alone!
My website (homepage.mac.com/kimgh) has a pictorial history of the entire project from groundbreaking in October 2002 to the present, in case anyone is interested.
--- Kim Helliwell
3:39 PM
Thanks, Kim, for your post. Your experience certainly sounds tough and grueling. I'm having atough time processing why the city doesn't like churches. And also, do churches have a right to force themselves legally on a community that doesn't particularly want them? Is that just a misunderstanding? Should the church attempt, with humility and love, to convince the community that they're good people doing good things - and strive for respect, if nothing else?
tough issues. thanks for your post.
10:30 AM
The interesting thing about The Point (as we will be called) is that there was only token opposition. We had the good fortune to begin our project at the same time as other new housing was being built in the area. There was only one voice of protest to our plans. This is because the people who did live in the area sued the city to stop the Sikh temple, lost, and became burnt out on the notion of fighting the city over churches. So our timing was pretty good.
In fact, all the fighting we did was with the planning commission staff. At our hearing, we presented our case and got unanimous approval from the commission for our project, and all was sweetness and light.
I think you raise a good question, though. We have strived (striven?) to engage with the Evergreen community over the years to let them know our plans and become known for community outreach. I think there are many new residents of the area who have expressed great interest in what we're doing, and overall we will have good relations.
I suppose if there is universal dislike of a church project that cannot be turned around, a church might have to consider different alternatives. Pushing yourself where you're not wanted doesn't strike me as Christlike. I'm thinking of the Gadarenes who implored Jesus to leave, and He did (not without leaving a witness, though!)
Kim Helliwell
10:46 AM
“Should the church attempt, with humility and love, to convince the community that they're good people doing good things - and strive for respect, if nothing else?”
WOW… Great tie down question. If you don’t know what I mean a tie down question is a question that you ask that has only one real answer to it. It’s a question where the answer is so obvious what the person being asked is suppose to say in response. In other words if they didn’t answer in the way the question was designed for them to answer they would probably feel like an idiot or wrong in some manner.
A lot of times tie down questions are used to cover a previously posed question or statement that is not necessarily true or right.
Here are some examples of a great tie down question that are not necessarily the truth. Don’t misunderstand me I am not saying I agree with the following questions just showing how they work.
Do you want to buy our weight loss pills they are the best and nothing else seems to work, they are only $100 a bottle. You want to lose weight don’t you?
Obviously answer is yes I want to lose weight but does that mean I should spend a $100 for some pills? No
Or
I believe every household should have a gun in every room. It’s the best way to keep our families safe from intruders. You want to protect you family from intruders and keep them safe don’t you?
Or
I believe we should all raise our Federal income tax 30%. This is the best way to afford to have health Care for our children. You do want your children to have Health Care… right?
Or
Don’t you think we should attack all terrorist no matter where they live? You want to keep 911 from happening again don’t you?
Or
“Do churches have a right to force themselves legally on a community that doesn't particularly want them? … Should the church attempt, with humility and love, to convince the community that they're good people doing good things - and strive for respect, if nothing else?”
These are crazy questions then followed up by another more reasonable question that’s loosely related to the same subject and tries to legitimizes the prior question. I kind of think you may have done this in your response.
I know your heart and how you hate to spoil the reputation of Jesus Christ by our earthy struggles as Christians. But sometimes we do have to fight when it’s worth it. The Churches right to assemble is part of what makes our country so great. I here the Bill of rights first amendments saying Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But to often people do not reference it completely here what is said next here is the whole statement. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
So don’t you agree that Christians have the right and the obligation to fight for that right when necessary? You want to be able to go to church don’t you?
Get it, I just used a tie down question on you ha ha
Peace out brother
8:38 PM
First off, my question isn't a tie down question because it's not emotionally manipulative, nor is it attempting to divert one's attention from the real issue at hand for a chimerical placebo.
You asked - rather sarcastically, I might add - "You want to go to church, don't you?"
Yes, but that doesn't mean that I have to have a politically protected right to do thrive as a Christian. Keep in mind that most Christians living throughout most time periods did not have anywhere near the rights we enjoy. Most Christians in the world TODAY still don't. Chinese Christians don't - the church is on fire over there. Indonesian Christians don't. Iranian Christians don't. I'm not sure where Americans got the idea that that government is supposed to be on their side, expressing their views.
Enjoying political coziness with the massive powers-that-be doesn't seem to be an aim of Jesus or the first Christians or the early church. Nowhere does Paul talk about how much Rome rocks.
But being the type of revolutionary and radical community that gains the respect of a larger community because of it's goodness is held up as a virtue of tremendous import to God.
So I don't think it's fair to call my sentence "crazy." Or called it a "tie down."
Perhaps I wasn't clear in the composition my comment that I didn't believe that churches should pursue building programs if met with any resistance from the community. I'm certainly not saying that.
But why is the community so against the church. If it were behaving the way it's supposed to - being a place where pastors are equipping people to be ministers whereever they find themselves - then why is there so much distrust and hatred? It's hard to argue against massive generosity, isn't it? It's hard to argue when something does so much good - despite it's failings and faults - that everyone immediately recognizes that it would be disingenous to discount its goodness.
And maybe that's Christ's point. Church, be like me. Be so good that when people persecute you, it's an outrage.
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father Who is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)
Acts 2
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
1 Peter 2:12
Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
Also, the Sermon on the Mount (city on a hill), Jesus' clarification of community (they'll know you by your love) and Paul's commands to make inroads into communities all reinforces the idea of God's dream from the beginning of a "nation" of priests. A nation of holy people.
The word "respect" as I have used it is another word for dignity and integrity and goodness. And God commands His church to manifest it.
Seems to me the Gospels, the Old Testament and the narratives of the early church are the real tie down here.
7:27 AM
No Dave it was a Tie Down Question. You placed a “obvious” question right after “questionable” question In a way that links the two and makes a person feel out of sort or wrong if he or she disagrees with you. Now you used the word manipulate, strong language. I never said that. However, you were attempting to influence the reader to your point of view. Was it devious, I don’t think so. So manipulate was your word not mine.
And yeah… I think saying “do churches have a right to force themselves legally on a community that doesn't particularly want them” was crazy especially when you look at what Kim and even you wrote in prior Blogs. How can you define a community by a few key personnel in the cities infostructure? Also it sounds like you’re saying having a place to go to church on Sunday is forcing ourselves on our community. I know you recanted, but that’s what you said.
By the way aren’t we the community too.
By the way, I thought it was obvious that I was being sarcastic when I said you want to go to church don’t you. Right after that, I also said I was trying to use a turn around question on you and wrote ha ha ha. But you say it like I was being rude to you. That was not my intent if that’s how you took it or even if that’s the way I came across then my bad.
I would say the political state of a country might not have anything to do with thriving as a Christian. You are referencing other counties that are thriving as you call it in a way that almost implies that, Christians in America are not. I know many lives that are being changed in America. FCC is a great example of lives being changed and Christians thriving right here in the good old USA.
All I’m saying God has blessed us to be able to live in a country that says the Churches of all faiths has a right to assemble. I feel we sometimes have an obligation to fight for that right. If we didn’t Kim’s church and FCC would still be under the thumbs of those who would not allow the church to grow and allow more lives to be changed for Christ. I know I am not out of line fore saying that.
8:09 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home