This post won’t tell you how to attract crowds to your church. Sorry. That’s your problem opportunity. It will tell you how to think about your facility strategy while you’re growing.
At the risk of sounding obvious, your church facility strategy should progress from the simplest choices to more complex choices. Though it’s obvious, you’d be amazed how often these steps are taken out of order.
Ready? Here they are. I’ll go ahead and warn you; you’re going to need to utilize video.
1. Maximize Service Offerings – As your crowd increases, maximize your capacity by utilizing multiple services in your current auditorium. Do this until your Seat Turns (total weekend adults in worship divided by auditorium seat capacity) is 2.0 or more.
For example, you have an auditorium capacity of 400. Your 11am service has 300 and your 9am service has 200. Your Seat Turns are (300+200)/400 = 1.25. You haven’t grown in 6 months. You listen to church growth people who say that, at 75%, your auditorium is functionally full. That’s why you aren’t growing. You start a capital campaign to go buy land. YOU’RE DEAD WRONG. Exciting churches have standing room only at their 11am services. Make your church more irresistible and consider as many as 4 services on Sunday. An attendance pattern for a church that has 3 services (a 9am, an 11am, and a 6pm service) might be 60%, 110%, and 60% respectively. That’s 2.3 seat turns.
2. Maximize Single-site Auditorium Size – Can you building a bigger auditorium on the same site? Can you build another auditorium on the same site? North Point Community Church built a second auditorium on the same site just as big as the original auditorium. Why this emphasis on single-site? Don’t I care about lost people on the other side of the city? You have way more relational connections and lost people right where you are. Bloom where you’re planted.
3. Go with a Multi-site Strategy - Readers of my blog will know that my bias is for fewer, larger, closer sites in high density locations. Again, the idea is simple first; complex later. Here are links to past posts that cover these topics.
In order to maximize service offerings and ultimately to go to multi-site you’ll need to develop a significant prowess in video. Check this post for further information on why.
All of this seems obvious. Yet, time after time I see:
- Churches buying land because their 11am service is 70% full.
- Churches not going to multiple services because they cannot recruit volunteers or, worse, “Everyone will not be able to see each other on Sunday.”
- Churches adding 4 or 5 really small campuses relative to the size of their original auditorium. This is an extremely complex way to grow and a recipe for disaster.
- Churches growing to a predetermined “maximum” size of, say 300 or so, and then going multi-site or splitting in half by planting a new church.
- Churches going multi-site simply because another church “surrendered” to them forcing them to go multi-site before other, much simpler, strategies were pursued.
In summary:
- Maximize service offerings
- Maximize single-site auditorium size
- Go to multi-site, pursuing as simple a strategy as possible
February 5, 2009 at 11:27 am |
“Churches not going to multiple services because they cannot recruit volunteers or, worse, “Everyone will not be able to see each other on Sunday.”
Both of those are valid concerns IMO.
It’s in our DNA here that we do everything we can short of building to stay together as a family of believers. We’d be more likely to explore moving to the elementary school across the street than do multiple worship services that cut connections and strain volunteers.
February 5, 2009 at 12:52 pm |
In reply to: David Wilson
David, I understand your comment and, in fact, used to attend a church like yours that valued community with “insiders” as you do. My personal opinion, reflected in my blog, is that I prefer a church that is a little more concerned about unbelievers they reach than believers they keep. What I have found paradoxically is that this type of church challenges mature believers significantly in their own growth and in their volunteering. Also, growing through multiple services enables a church to grow in giving while maintaining fixed costs for facility rental. Multiple Seat Turns translates into great stewardship and better enables churches to position themselves for the next facility step. Confining yourself to one service is certainly a legitimate for a church that values community; however, it does put brakes on growth.
February 5, 2009 at 12:41 pm |
And, once again… “Going, going, GONE! McDaniel has hit it outta the park!”
February 5, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
It’s a difference in philosophy. We believe 300 in attendance is the most we need to be to maintain community which drives discipleship and energizes evangelism through relationship. After that – we plant another church. Which would meet in rented space – I’d never buy another building.
Believers reach unbelievers. So we work on those areas that help form Christ in them. Attractional vs Incarnational means some will choose to lean one way and some another. Much will depend on context.
Our believers serve throughout the community, hold small groups, participate in affinity groups/events, and bring their neighbors and friends to our gatherings. Since we are small, we cannot compete in an attractional model, but we can do very well in an incarnational mode.
Obviously YMMV.
February 5, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
David, it sounds like your church does both attractional & incarnational, if we use those terms as categories of evangelism methods. Bringing people to anything (small group or gathering) is somewhat attractional and DOING anything can be labeled incarnational. I think all churches probably do some of both, but as you said, they lean one way or the other. A smaller church, or a church plant, probably does have to do more incarnational but once an environment is created where people can be invited, the attractional model can be used. Critical mass is important, but I think a church of 300 could easily create a great environment to invite unchurched people to.
Forgive me if my understanding of those terms is off base.
February 5, 2009 at 8:01 pm |
Nick,
I’m not very good with those labels. Sounds like you used them pretty well to me. I am very intrigued with your last point about critical mass and church size. No doubt that you can create a great environment to invite people to with an attendance of 300 adults in worship. In fact, that’s probably an ideal size for adults. And it also works for the pre-school and K-5th kids they bring with them. Adults, pre-school, and K-5th probably prefer small (or at least do not mind small). That all changes for Middle Schoolers (6th-8th grade) and High Schoolers (9th-12th grade). Those demographics really seem to work better at scale.
So my preference is to size a church at a level where the Middle and High School ministries thrive.
I’d love to hear what others think about this, though.
February 5, 2009 at 11:12 pm |
I agree about the ideal size, I was thinking of 300 total, not even 300 adults. Our church runs 150-250 at each service and critical mass exists, even though the room could have 450 chairs (300 set up). A church plant our church helps out runs 110 each week, and they have critical mass in their worship environment because the theater size is just right for that. I’ve learned how much the critical mass feel can be controlled by the environment.
In regards to students, do you mean the students like to see large numbers or is it another reason (volunteers, etc)?
February 6, 2009 at 5:31 am |
Nick,
It’s the student population. Ask really great student pastors what the optimal student ministry size is for each middle school and high school. In my asking around, I get numbers of 100 or more total for high school plus middle school. Not to say you cannot have an effective student ministry with less. Again, I’m asking what is optimal.
Then the question is, how many adults in worship do you need to get to that kind of student population?
February 6, 2009 at 9:36 am |
David,
Interesting article – I like the subject and ideas represented on your blog. However, I’d like to talk about your commentary on the idea of 75% functional capacity, because I think while your commentary is partially correct, there are other things that need to be said.
The idea of functional capacity is simply that when a room reaches a certain capacity it ‘feels’ full. My firm has always used a number higher than 75%, like 80% or 85%. This idea should not be distorted into a rule that if you reach 75-85 percent capacity in one service that you should definitely begin a capital campaign and buy land. One of the reasons you may hear people implying that is because at least at one time, many pastor’s were unaware of this phenomenon. They would wonder why their weekly attendance would creep up to 90%, and then drop off to 75%, and then creep up and drop off again.
When a church reaches capacity or functional capacity, they need to consider their growth strategy and vision, if they have not done so already. Their growth strategy may be a commitment not to grow above what their current facility can handle. Or, it may be to build a larger facility, or go multi-site, or what have you.
If a church is going to be building a larger facility based on a belief that is God’s calling to them, they need to realize that the expansion process can take YEARS. Rules about when to expand in what types of ways may be helpful in some ways, but at best they are incomplete strategies, because church leadership and congregants must determine what God’s vision is for their particular situation.
Thanks again for the post, keep up the good work!
February 6, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
Thanks for your insights David,
We are a church of 675 people. We started 8 years ago on a mountain in a new development that now has roughly 7000 people living in it. We meet in the local elementary school and run two services and have reached our capacity in regards to space (especially with the kids ministry). We are thinking of a third service but the school may not be willing to give us the extra time we would need (the school doubles as a community center)so we are also looking for land. There is no other public infrastructure in our community that we can rent. Land will cost us about $250.000 dollars per acre which is costly – but another public building would be a great asset to the community.
I know we have to be creative and are looking and seeking God for any other options we can think of.
Be interested in your thoughts or any others.
February 7, 2009 at 10:02 am |
Shawn,
Not sure if you saw this post. It might be helpful. You have a wonderful problem. You currently lease-by-the-day and you’re out of space. Your options are: (1) get a bigger lease-by-the-day facility, (2) get a 24/7 lease facility, (3) buy a bldg and renovate, (4) build a bldg (5) get an additional facility and go multi-site, and (6) somehow convince the school to allow you 3 services. I have probably left a few out.
Here’s a quick assessment of the options, not knowing anything of your town:
(1) You’ve searched this to death, I’m sure. We’ve used hotel ballrooms, movie theaters, civic centers, community theaters, and other church buildings.
(2) This may be the most promising. You point out the high cost of land. If you could lease a bldg for 3 years or 5 years with an option to renew the lease, then you only have to raise money for leasehold improvement. We have put churches in to retail buildings, office buildings, and light industrial buildings.
(3) Same type of bldg as (2) but more expensive.
(4) Even more expensive.
(5) Some churches go multi-site early in their growth cycle. This is a complicated idea from a leadership standpoint. Elevation Church in Charlotte, National Community Church in DC, and Connexus Community Church in Barrie, Ontario are examples of multi-site churches in lease-by-the-day facilities.
(6) This is obviously the easiest and should be the option you exhaust first. A related version of this is to brainstorm about the number of people you can serve per service. For you that may be children’s space. Is that really maximized? And of course, are your services balanced? Can you do anything with service times to maximize the balance between the 2 services.
Hope this wasn’t too obvious. Probably was. You guys have been living with this “problem” for a while. Remember, it’s not a problem. It’s a blessing.
February 7, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
Thanks for your feedback David,
We have weighed most of what you have said already. The big issue for us is that we are located in a community (a mountainside development)where there is absolutely no other infrastructure to lease or rent (except for the school). We have considered moving off the mountain and into the valley community but the church was planted in order to specifically reach the community we are in.
).
That is why we are looking to buy land because it seems to be the only option to expanding in the community we feel called to reach.
It is kind of an interesting dilemna as a good part our congregation loves the school environment and a good part would love to have their own facilities. (Most of the those who love the school aren’t involved in the set up
We are trying to get more of our second service attenders to commit to coming to our first service as that would free up some space in our second service as well as our kids areas – however, that will only be a short term solution.
We have very little parking and we have used every room we are allowed to for our children’s ministries.
I agree that it is a blessing to have these kind of issues, but these “ceilings” begin to work against you after a while (eg. we often have new people drive off because they cannot find any parking – and we do have a parking team doing their best to make room).
I have thought of the multisite option but just not sure if it is where we are at this point. I need to keep thinking that through though.
Anyway – I really appreciate your feedback and thoughts.
February 8, 2009 at 10:02 pm |
Shawn, do any of your attenders come from the valley? Like David mentioned in this post and others, going multisite isn’t a first choice but if it’s the best choice left, launching a site in an area you already know you have a lot of people coming from might be the best way to do that.
For anybody that didn’t see Tony’s latest blog on attendance & capacity:
http://tonymorganlive.com/2009/02/08/feel-the-squeeze/
February 9, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
Hey Nick – yes we do have people who come from the “valley.” And we have thought and continue to think about another site.
I am just not sure that another site would work in our community. We may be better off simply planting a new church.
We have some work to do to figure all this out. It is exciting and I am looking forward to what God is going to do.
Thanks for your feedback.
March 1, 2009 at 4:22 am |
Hey – Thanks for the blog comments – very interesting – I was searching for this kind of thing – and have some questions – I’d love advice from anyone!
We are an Australian church in a community of approx 12,000 and have been growing a lot in the last few years. (Australian church attendance is lucky to be at 3 to 5% of population) We have 150 seats out in our auditorium, and realistically cannot put out any more without it then making access and after service coffee etc impossible due to space. We have literally run out of seats recently, and often now have 130 or so people attending our service.
As Pastor I am doing lots of thinking about what to do and how. There is NO room to expand our building on our current site (35 Boston Rd, Torquay VIc Australia – check it out on google earth!) – we cover all the land expect for a single car width driveway to the rear. One other consideration are that we have only about 8 (eight) off street car parks on our site – Our site is a third of an acre (1300square metres – a slightly larger than usual house block – we are in a residential area) the street we are in is one of the narrowest in our town as well and parking is a problem, and the street is reduced to a single lane when we have cars parked down both sides as we do every week. There are NO larger halls etc in our town available to be rented at all. We allow other groups to use our facility as it is one of the best available – It gets a lot of use throughout the week by activities we run as a church, and that others run.
Two morning services would – in my mind- make the traffic and parking worse as people tried to both arrive and leave at the same time, so we will consider a sunday night, or friday or saturday night service as an extra service BUT given out tiny plot of land, and the lack of parking – is it reasonable (even necessary) for us to relocate?
And given there is no other facility to rent/lease – is it reasonable that we would buy land and build something ourselves?
the church is 25yrs old and the building we now have was purchased in 1997 – prior to that the church used school halls etc. out web iste is http://www.tcfnet.org.au and if anyoen is interested a talk I gave last year about our land and a desire to buy new is at http://www.tcfnet.org.au/future – the and mentioned in that presentation is now NOT for sale at all due to the world financial crisis – the developers will not deveop the subdiviosn for up to 5 years now.
i am also VERY interested in ideas about what size a church ought to be before a healthy second service or split into 2 congregations/sites can take place – I think that the size we are now (about 150 attenders each week) is a bit small – we have about 200 active people (that is they come once a month or so ) but only about the 120 to 135 attenders on any given Sunday. – Thanks Chris Rowney
March 1, 2009 at 4:33 am |
Oh I forgot to say – Land here is crazy expensive (we are on the coast – popular tourist place) – our current land (land alone) was valued at $1 million (Australian) during last year – it would cost use between $500,000 to $1,25 million per acre to buy new land a little further out form the centre of our town!…. – current worldl financial situation has probably dropped value of our current land a bit – but has not really dropped value of new land as so little is available in our town. Chris Rowney
May 19, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
Have you heard of the ‘exclusion factor’? As I understand it, it’s when a group exceeds filling 80% of their space and needs to accomdate more growth. We have a Sunday Bible class enrollment of 1200 and not enough chairs to seat everyone. I’ve just acquired a new room with a seating capacity of 100 but am running into resistance to the expansion ideas. Seems classes are protective of ‘their’ people. Any advice?