Dysfunctional
Architecture
J. David Schmidt wants to help your church avoid the $6
million mistake.
Several years ago when I was teaching strategic planning at a Willow Creek
Association conference, a pastor came to me at the end of the first day. He was
crestfallen.
Willow Creek's executive pastor, Greg Hawkins, and I had just spent the day
equipping attendees to think strategically about the mission, vision, and core
values for their churches. We had been leaning hard into the critical connection
between these guiding ideas and the pragmatic decisions facing church leaders—like
architecture.
Clearly distressed, this pastor said, in essence, "I'm sick. We have
just completed our new facility and are now in debt over $6 million dollars—and
I think we built the wrong building."
He went on to describe the gap that had emerged in his thinking after a day
of exposure to strategic thinking processes. The building they built better
reflected their history and where they were—not the promise and
potential of where they wanted to go and who they wanted to reach. The new
facility did not accurately reflect the emerging value in that church to put
more resources into reaching unchurched people. It was a painful moment. Here
was a pastor facing a mountain of debt with a sense that their church had
purchased something that wasn't a good fit—and they couldn't return it for a
refund.
Many faith communities today have inherited dysfunctional church
architecture. But there are many others on the cusp of retaining an architect
that have the potential to alter the trajectory of their church's future
depending on how much strategic thinking has preceded the decision to build.
Dysfunctional church architecture has its taproot, not in a poorly chosen
architect, cantankerous committee, too little money, or anemic project
management. Rather, dysfunctional church architecture often has its source in
weak or unclarified answers to the questions that determine a church's destiny.
If a vision community in a church shares a clear and common understanding of its
role, vision, and values, it will be easier to determine an effective
architectural destination for itself. Without these core essential ideas acting
as a rudder, the church runs the real danger of embracing architecture that
actually inhibits its capacity to achieve its vision. The style can be
appropriate to the time and place, and successful fund-raising can occur. But
dysfunctional is dysfunctional even when there's nice curb appeal and all the
pledges are paid.
Constricting Missional Intent
A church we know of recently moved into a new sanctuary complete with
sweeping arches, baptistry and choir loft, vast amounts of ambient light from
windows near the ceiling, and unobstructed sight lines for every seat.
Now as this church tries to make a turn toward more contemporary worship,
aspects of the facility fight them. The desire for lots of ambient light will
require a costly solution when using video projection. The front of the
sanctuary doesn't lend itself to the wide range of music, dramatic, or
liturgical expressions this church plans to embrace in the coming years. A
square sanctuary creates an intimate wrap around seating arrangement—but
doesn't allow for video screens to be installed without impacting capacity.
When originally designed, the sanctuary perfectly reflected where the church
was coming from—but not where it was going. The decision to build this
particular sanctuary was not tethered to any strategic thinking about future
audiences, reaching the unchurched, role in the community, or emerging worship
styles. Ingenuity will allow them to recover to some degree—but at a high cost
to both relevancy and finances. Missional intent gets constricted when buildings
don't adequately reflect the desired or likely trajectory of a church.
In a visit to Cades Cove in Smoky Mountain National Park, you can visit a
one
room Methodist church, active throughout the 1800's. You gain entrance to the
church through two doors in the rear—one for men and one for women.
Ironically, the Methodists here didn't follow this custom of separating the
sexes. But the church's founders, who built this church for $115 in 115 days,
borrowed the plans from a church that did divide its people by gender. Form
didn't dictate the theology or impact of this church—but it did impact how
congregants entered their church. In this church's case, leaders were willing to
compromise architectural form so that they might quickly get on with
accomplishing the function of "being the church."
The Word of Faith Family Worship Center in Virginia rents a former bank
facility complete with a drive up window. This church has adapted its functions
to fit the form of the facility—by offering drive through prayer for
motorists.
In both of these examples the form or facility itself dictated the way people
function in it—with good outcomes. But sometimes the result is not so positive
as a quickly built church or motorists finding accessible prayer support. Rather
than acting as an enabler of mission, architecture can inhibit fresh thinking
and expression, constricting energy for mission. Architecture, no matter how
expressive, worshipful, or contemporary can imprison minds and spirits when it
is out of sync with the missional intent of a church.
To be an effective fifth column in ministry, even architecture should provide
means for channeling the church's energies toward its objectives, shape the
behaviors of individuals, and facilitate the groupings of people that will build
a biblically functioning community. Pausing for strategic thinking before
breaking ground allows a church to bring its building into alignment with its
vision for where it wants to go.
Organizing Around Attenders and Processes
The new
Jewish Museum Berlin that just opened in Germany makes creative use
of long, negative, or empty space to graphically depict a void of
accomplishments and contributions that never occurred because of the deaths of
Jews in the holocaust. In the Martin Luther King, Jr., museum in Atlanta, you
literally "march" up a road with figures frozen in the times and dress
of the mid-60's civil rights movement. Museums are highly intentional about
creating environments that impact attenders and facilitate processes of touching
them on every level. Good church architecture will do the same—organize around
the people it is currently and likely to serve and the processes that are likely
to be important to their spiritual formation.
This is a very different guidance system for making architectural decisions
than the system that depends heavily on a funding and building a bigger, better,
or different wineskin to accommodate more of the same.
Strategic thinking and planning is really an act of good stewardship when it
precedes facility development. Master planning and fund-raising is secondary to
clear self-identity, role clarity, and strategic thinking about the future
function of a church in a community. I wonder how much ministry opportunity loss
occurs because church leaders are boxed in by a facility that determined to
launch strategic thinking and planning "once we're in the new
building."
____________________
Comment by Dave Travis of Church Champions: As church champions
we serve churches facing construction as we lead them to have solid answers to
the question of role, vision, core values, and the needs of younger and future
audiences—before they build. It is much less a question of where church
architecture is going and much more where can this local church's architecture
take it?
You can reach David Schmidt of J.
David Schmidt & Associates for dialogue and more information at David@wiseplanning.net
or by calling (630) 682-1990.
For more thoughts on the role of building design and its relation to ministry
design, check out the Advance
Scout Briefing: New Movements in Architecture and Facilities in
Louisville, KY, Nov. 5-6, 2001.
From Church Champions
Update, September 24, 2001. © 2001 Leadership
Network. Used by permission.
