Taking a step of faith always requires risk - always requires stepping into the unknown. If we could see every detail about where God was leading and how he would provide, we wouldn’t need faith. But if there is any “success” to be had in the Christian walk, it will only come as we live by faith - as we live each and every day by first listening intently for the call of God and then trusting him, even through our fear, as we step into what we cannot see. This is where the true blessings of God reside.

When God calls us to a place where we must be “certain of what we do not see,” we must boldly step. We must overcome our fears with a faith grounded in the promises of his word and trust him with all our heart to never leave our side. He is always faithful. When we hear God’s call we must be prepared to step and take the risk of faith.

Leaders are people of great faith. The essence of faith is risk. A leader constantly risks going where the possibility of failure is greater than the possibility of success. As leaders we choose to leave the ruts of routine, ruts of status quo, and ruts of maintaining mediocrity. However, to leave the ruts for new routes, new ways, new ideas, new methods, new styles, and new structures is risky.

Over the last several years the CCLC committee has done a thorough job of analyzing the data with respect to the brick and mortar aspects of building the CCLC. As part of this process the cornerstones of what this facility will represent have been established. Today, we know much of the tangible data there is to know and the CCLC committee has shown that MUMC can support the CCLC based on our experience with previous capital campaigns. It seems what has held me back is the fact that I could not see every last detail. What I have learned is that although I cannot see every last detail I must and will trust in God that the CCLC will be an important part in the future of MUMC.

Risk isn’t careless action –
Risk is “Faith in Action”

Hopefully the comments, questions and answers contained in this Blog will be shared with our congregation as a whole, other than by this Blog, not only to inform, but hopefully to motivate those whose commitment to MUMC may need “motivation”.

Your expertise, your thorough study, your commitment to solving issues, and your dedication to the CCLC strategic plan is not only exemplary but inspirational. We got the answers to our questions, and we got our pocketbook out.

Larry and Terry Fairchild

This is my view of the committee’s work and my response to some of the questions that have been raised.

In 1994, a building needs survey of the congregation showed that 40% thought we needed a Fellowship and Family Life Center (FLC), 22% a new sanctuary, and 31% additional education space. The Church decided to build a new sanctuary along with additional education space, but a commitment was made to continue working toward development of a Family Life Center.

Since the completion of the sanctuary, the Church has continued to purchase nearby properties as they have become available and 242 additional parking spaces have been constructed. These acquisitions and additions are responsible for much of our present debt.

Rev. Nancy Wilson and the staff, numerous ministry leaders, and Dave Gnaegy prepared an excellent and very detailed space program analysis of what a Family Life Center should include. It was called “The Dream Team Study”. It programmed the space needs of all the existing and proposed uses and ministries that were considered for the FLC at that time and they totaled about 54,000 square feet of floor space.

In December, 2003, the MUMC Charge Conference listed as one of its goals - -
“Launch a major capital drive 2005 – 2007 that reduces existing debt and finances construction of Christian Life Center (CLC). This highlights a major, long range commitment to MUMC, to youth, family, community, and our music and drama programs, all aimed at community outreach.”

The Conference authorized the formation of an exploratory Building Committee to study development of the CLC and Larry Fairchild was named chairman. Larry and Terry Fairchild had already made an extensive study on their own, visiting and talking to churches who had built FLC’s and had experienced considerable growth in attendance and community outreach. The information they gathered and the contacts they established were invaluable in our work. The consensus of the testimony Larry reported from those churches can be briefly summarized:
- “We don’t know why we didn’t build it sooner.”
- “We should have made it bigger.”
- “The uses and ministries have continued to change and grow far beyond what we
- originally planned.”
The Dream Team Study and Larry and Terry’s work gave the committee a good platform on which to begin its study. Because of the change in focus, the name was changed to Community Christian Life Center (CCLC).

The experience of the other churches showed that the planning and design of our CCLC should provide for a maximum of flexibility and multiple use space in order to be able to facilitate as many of the programmed uses and ministries as possible and to be able to adapt to future changes. We learned that many churches, whose attendance and outreach ministries were growing, were building these kinds of buildings and many were including contemporary worship in their gyms. Consultants advised that this is true in the St. Louis area and across the country. During our four year study, our contemporary worship service continued to grow and the contemporary worship use of a CCLC gym changed from a possible future use to a primary ministry of the CCLC. We modified our plans to provide for the features that consultants and our contemporary worship team advised would be needed to facilitate contemporary worship.

A study of the Church site plan and the surveys and topo maps of our properties at 228 and 232 Creve Coeur Avenue showed that there was no area with sufficient buildable area for the CCLC. Attempts to acquire additional properties were unsuccessful. In any
case, the properties to the north were not well suited for a CCLC site.

During construction of the new sanctuary, provisions were made for the possibility of constructing a future Family Life Center in the area south of the Chapel and east of the new sanctuary, presently our southeast parking lot. This area would be too small for the building contemplated now and would have eliminated all of those parking spaces, would have blocked views of the chapel and sanctuary and would have blocked the views out of the sanctuary and chapel

We became aware that we might be able to buy the properties at 205 and 209 Creve Coeur Avenue across the street from our west parking lot. We conducted a preliminary engineering analysis of these and adjoining properties and determined, that with the addition of the State Group Home property at 201 Creve Coeur, these properties would make a very suitable site for the contemplated building and one that had many positive features.
1. It was bounded on the south by Fourth Street, a 40 foot wide paper street that probably could be vacated by the City of Manchester with half of it accruing to our property.
2. It was bounded on the west and north by the City Park with the possibility of mutual development advantages.
3. It had existing storm sewers running from the street to the rear along both the north and south property lines with existing catch basins near the rear line. This means that minimum storm sewer construction would probably be required for development of this site.
4. The adjoining City Park offers other advantages to a CCLC on this site. The park could offer opportunities for community service projects by MUMC that would enhance the park and our property. It would provide a pleasant setting for the CCLC. The building will have good views out of all four sides and will appear to nestle back into the park. It would have a two story elevation on most of the front elevation facing the street.
5. Use of this site would keep CCLC traffic and congestion away from our existing building. It would avoid most of the disruption that nearly a year of construction would cause to church operations and it would avoid the loss of many of our prime parking spaces nearer to the church.
6. One of the most important advantages of this site is that the CCLC on this site would be less intrusive on the neighbors on Creve Coeur and it would avoid adding traffic on the residential portion of the street. It would be separated from the nearest residence by the City Park.
7. One of the biggest advantages of this site is the opportunity it provides for joint use of the parking spaces it would provide and those of our existing parking lot, by users of either building. The preliminary plan provides about 100 new parking spaces,
8. This site offers opportunities for significant cost savings in site development. The storm sewer costs will be low. Sanitary sewer and utilities are available. The contemplated building would be built into the hillside so that the front entrance on the main floor (middle level) would be at street level and the rear doors, truck dock, and overhead doors would be near existing grade at the lower level. Excavation and grading would be minimized
9. The site offers opportunities for savings in building costs. The lower level would be like a walkout basement of a house. About one half of its lower level exterior wall would be concrete foundation. The other half would be steel framed with windows and doors. This lower level space could be finished as little or a much as we want. There are many proposed uses that would require little or no finish. The square foot cost of these spaces might only be 40% of the average cost of the main level. The areas with windows and doors could be finished with drywall, flooring, and ceiling and they would have the same “class A” feeling as similar spaces on the upper floors, and they would cost much less. Because of the walkout construction, its proximity to the City Park, and its setback from the street, a much smaller portion of the building’s exterior walls would have to have expensive finish treatment. With part of this level below grade, its heating and cooling costs would be much lower. In fact, many of the spaces at this level might not have any heating and cooling loads, depending upon their use and location.

We recommended that MUMC acquire the properties at 205 and 209 Creve Coeur Avenue and the Church approved their purchase. The Committee recommended that MUMC negotiate with the State to acquire their existing group home property at 201 Creve Coeur Ave. MUMC reached an agreement to build a new group home on the front 18,000 square feet of 232 Creve Coeur and exchange it for 201 Creve Coeur. The new home is under construction.

Some have stated that the CCLC should be built near, or attached to, our existing building. They are concerned that if we have the contemporary service in a building across the street, it will create a separate congregation without an opportunity for fellowship with the other services and groups. Others have expressed concern about the hazards of crossing the street and the parking lot. These are valid concerns. They are concerns that we have now. We have very limited opportunities now for fellowship between our different services and we often have people crossing the street. We always have to be concerned with safety.
We cannot attach the CCLC to our existing building or even build it close to it. The east west drive along the north side of the building that connects our west parking lot to Woods Mill Road is essential to our traffic circulation. We do not have any other onsite connection from our west parking to Woods Mill and we don’t own any property that would allow us to build one. I believe the drive along the west side of our building is essential also. But the feature that makes it impractical to build in this area is the storm sewer that collects the water coming down from the north and carries it around the west side of the building to the detention basin south of the sanctuary. We can’t relocate this sewer and we shouldn’t think about building over it.

Since acquiring the properties across the street, MUMC has acquired the house and property at 220 Creve Coeur. It is the house just north of the northwest parking lot. This property, the northwest parking lots, and part of the parking lot north of the Church would provide sufficient buildable area for the CCLC. The building would be about 145 feet from the north entrance of the Church. In my opinion, this site would not be a good one for the CCLC or have any advantage over the site across the street for the following reasons:
1. It would locate the CCLC next door to the house at 224 Creve Coeur and across the street from three other houses. Its traffic would intrude into the residential area.
2. For proper siting, the building would have to sit so high that its street level (main) floor would be approximately 21 feet higher than the main floor of our existing building. Unless we built a four story building, the lower floor level would be about 5 to 8 feet higher than existing grade at the rear of the building, with no room to adjust to the existing driveway grades.
3. We know from previous rock borings that the full building footprint could probably not be economically excavated to four full stories deep. Trying to build here would force us into a complicated and expensive building and one not nearly as pleasing in appearance at this location. However it might be changed to try to adapt it to this site, it would still look huge. It would be two stories high on the north side, three stories high on much of the front (west side and south side) and three or four stories high on the back. The truck dock and overhead doors would face the cemetery and be visible and not far from the north entrances of the church. All four walls would have to have a more expensive exterior finish since they would all be visible from homes or the church.
4. If we build it in proximity to our present building, some would argue that it should be built in the same style. Not only would that cost more but it would also be in contrast to the prevailing wisdom about the appearance of these kinds of buildings. Just building it adjacent to our large traditional church building might discourage some of the people we want to invite.
5. It would eliminate about 100 of our existing prime parking spaces and we would have 40 less total spaces than if we built the CCLC on the west side.
6. It would restrict access to our property to the north. Worst of all, it would limit development of that property. If we built there and did acquire the rest of the property on the east side of Creve Coeur some time in the future, we would not be able to build playing fields or a large building development.
7. It would not have the advantages of being adjacent to the park.
8. The existing kitchen, fellowship hall, nursery, and the child care room would be too far away to serve a CCLC on this site and they would be in a different building.
9. The existing kitchen and pantry would not be large enough, equipped, and convenient enough to handle the functions planned for the CCLC. Building on either site would require new facilities in the CCLC.
10. Even if you could live with all of the other objections, I don’t believe the existing Fellowship Hall would be large enough to serve a full traditional service (1200) a full CCLC contemporary service (800?) the existing Sunday School, and new Sunday School classes in the CCLC all at once.
11. If we build the CCLC on the east site, we would have to build the largest possible parking lot on the west site. There might be as many as 300 spaces. All of those people would have to cross the street. We would have people crossing the street with either site.
Some have suggested moving the contemporary service back into the sanctuary. That would be contrary to the advice of our contemporary service team. It would also be contrary to the conventional wisdom that contemporary worship is more successful in attracting some worshipers in less traditional settings. I understand that feedback from some of our contemporary visitors has been “I have friends that would enjoy the service but they won’t attend in this building”. Now, a considerable number of people are voting, by their presence, that they want a traditional service at 9:00 a.m. One of our objectives should be to fill the sanctuary at that service with traditional worshipers.

We would also need to do everything we could to facilitate and encourage fellowship between the contemporary service congregation and the other services and groups. For instance, using blended welcoming teams in the CCLC, rotating different ministry information tables in the lobby, having a brief “ministry moment” in each service with videos of Habitat, Volunteers in Mission, Bicycle Rehab, Mohab Riders, Room at the Inn, Circle of Concern, etc. There are many other fellowship “mixers”, parties, classes or events that could be used to bring the congregation together.

Clearly, we need a new and larger contemporary worship area. We have an opportunity to provide one in a new CCLC building across the street that would have everything it needs to succeed, and this would allow our present Fellowship Hall to become a Fellowship Hall again. If Sunday school classes are needed in the CCLC, there would be plenty of room for years to come. All of the meeting rooms, the Café, the Great Hall, and upper and lower shell space could be used as classrooms.

Other than contemporary worship, most of the other activities and uses contemplated for the CCLC do not need to be located near the present building. In fact, it would probably be better if they were not. They can be accomplished better and at a lower cost across the street. The Market for Missions could be operated as a thrift store open much of the year. It could be located in an unfinished area of the lower level serviced by the truck dock and overhead doors. It could create more revenue for charities, recycle more usable items, and provide more people with affordable goods. It would eliminate disruptions of church operations and wear and tear on the church building.

The Room at the Inn could be provided in a space designed and finished specifically for the needs of that ministry, which could also serve as shelter for other families in case of an emergency. The availability of the play area in the café would enhance the stay of families with young children

The Fair Trade Store could be operated year round. If we build the CCLC , I think the success of the recent “Market” shows that we need to reassess the store and give it more space and/or provide the flexibility to provide more space at Christmas time.

I think one of our highest priorities should be development of a new Youth Center. Our studies of other churches have shown that youth activities are one of the primary factors in increasing church attendance. Comparing our youth facilities to others is discouraging. A new youth center in the windowed portion of the CCLC lower level could be an inexpensive solution. It could include a large, mostly unfinished area that could be used for a worship area, dance room, meeting room, party room, etc. Other smaller areas could be finished as desired. It could be enhanced by an outdoor patio/courtyard and arena .

A Shepherd’s Center with activities for older adults could use the other spaces already included in the CCLC and would require little or no additional facilities. The unfinished lower level could be used for maintenance shop, bicycle rehab, crafts, props and scenery shop, ministry storage, general storage, Boy Scouts, Circle of Concern support (surplus food storage, etc.)

Some have said that the CCLC is too big. They didn’t explain. They suggest building a smaller building and adding on later. The two-court gym is the cornerstone of the building footprint. When I questioned Nancy Wilson about the need for two courts, I found she had done her homework. Some have said there are lots of other gyms available. She had found that there were not. Every gym that the Rockwood District makes available for boy’s and girl’s basketball is fully utilized and they only serve about 400 boys and girls. I gathered the Parkway situation was similar. Some have said we have the YMCA, JCA and municipal gyms. Yes, but there is a charge and even the lowest charge prevents many boys and girls from playing. In all of these together, only a small percentage of the youth in our area can take part. Her judgment in insisting on a two court gym has already been proven to me. Our contemporary worship attendance is already approaching the capacity of a one court gym. In order to be able to accommodate a significant increase in attendance in the CCLC, we would need a two court gym.

If you start with a two court gym, add space to facilitate contemporary worship, add a lobby/welcome center, add fellowship areas (café with play area and Great Hall), add child care, add office and restrooms, and fill out the corner left over with a Fair Trade Store and Bookstore, you have our main floor of 34,000 SF. In my opinion, to build anything less than that would not be a step forward. The foundation that supports this main floor is the walkout lower level that would provide 34,000 SF or low cost space that you could use unfinished or finish it as you will and when you will. When you already
have the site, the lower level, and the main floor, the incremental cost to add the upper level of about 23,000 SF is relatively low. The 34,000 SF building footprint, driveway and parking bays, and room for a storm detention basin fill up the site.

The construction and the construction cost of a building can be broken down into two components – the shell and the interior finish. The shell consists of the site work, the building structure and enclosure, and the basic building equipment, electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems. Interior finish includes interior partitions, painting, ceilings, floor covering, fixtures, etc. When you talk about building a smaller building and adding on later, your objective is to defer part of the cost until there is a need for the space. A better way, and what we are proposing, is to build the building shell that fits the site and allows the shell and the site work to be completed at one time in the most efficient and cost effective way, and to defer the interior finish of future spaces until they are needed. Future interior finish work will have little or no effect on the site and operation or use of the rest of the building .By the time the building would be built, much of the unfinished lower level could be designated for use, even if just for interim use.

Some have said we should know what the operating costs will be. When we have a building design, when we know how many people and what equipment, lighting, use, and hours of operation are going to apply to each space, we will be able to predict what the utility, maintenance, and janitorial costs will be.

At the time of a Church Conference to consider approval of construction, it would be possible to have a good estimate of what the operating and staffing costs would be for the uses of the building proposed at that time. If we go ahead with the CCLC, we would include optimum energy efficient design to minimize utility costs. The use of the
walkout lower level would be a good start.

Some have said we don’t need a Café in the CCLC. There appears to be a lot of different ideas about what the Café would be. The word Café was borrowed from Woody’s Youth and Family Center Café at the Life Christian Church at 13001 Gravois Road in Fenton. St. John’s and Chesterfield Presbyterian use that term, too. After nearly four years of discussion, here is what I gathered it could be:
- A fellowship hall associated with contemporary worship service. Because of the play area, it could be a big hit with youngsters. The Great Hall could be used to supplement the Café for fellowship after a worship service as is the Great Hall at Webster Hills UMC.
- A multipurpose kitchen and pantry to supply fast food (like Woody’s) or meals like our present kitchen.
- A dining room for serving meals, fast food, or snacks.
- A morning coffee shop.
- A snack bar.
- A youth snack supper (used like the cafes at Chesterfield Presbyterian, St. John’s, and Woody’s.
- A party room for hosting parties of all kinds including birthday parties for youngsters as does Woody’s.
- It could provide food and catering for receptions, parties, dinners, auctions, meetings, etc. in the Great Hall or Gym.
- A classroom or meeting room
The Café was never seriously considered by the committee for serving as a fine restaurant competing with other area restaurants.

Some have asked “What has been the result of large building projects for increasing membership in neighboring churches? It is difficult to answer that question because other factors could have affected the growth in attendance or membership of a church. Also, some churches have not built a new CCLC building but have merely added on to or modified existing buildings to provide some of the features of the CCLC. In any case, all
of the churches building these projects, that I have studied, have indicated a growth in attendance. .

An architect, who has designed many of these types of buildings and building additions or modifications, reports that all of them have experienced increases in attendance and he says they would be glad to share their experiences with us. When I asked an audio-visual consultant who has designed systems for many of these buildings here and around the country, how many of the active, growing churches that he is familiar with, have, or are building, buildings with Family Life Centers and/or contemporary worship areas, he responded “all of them”.

St. John’s Lutheran in Ellisville has had an increase in weekly attendance from 650 to 2600 in the last twenty years. Their school (thru 8th grade) has been very popular and undoubtedly is a big factor in their growth. In the last twelve years they have been building FLC type buildings and remodeling projects. In 2001 they completed a new youth building and they have just completed an entirely new educational building. Their membership has increased from 4378 in 1997 to 5835 in 2006. Their youth building has a game room on the third floor and a “warehouse” youth worship area (parents included) on the second floor. It has a gathering place for youth to hang out, study areas, a prayer room, small group meeting space as well as a “Mission Café” with tables and booths. On Friday nights they hire a small band from one of the high schools. The Youth Center and the Friday night sessions are very popular. They are well supervised. If the music violates their rules, the band doesn’t get paid . St. John’s also has a “Commons” area with kitchen and bookstore. They serve meals after Sunday services, can seat 800, host dinners, auctions, meetings, etc. St. John’s built a one court gym and they now have a two or three court need.

Bonhomme Presbyterian modified their one court gym to facilitate contemporary worship and new attendance has been experienced. They have two contemporary services on Sunday morning. Webster Hills UMC built a 30,000 SF FLC with a single court gym. They have a 9:00 a.m. contemporary service in between traditional services in their church across the street. They report the service has grown and that most of those attending are new to the church. An Associate Pastor reported that the contemporary worship service has halted a decline in membership. Getting new people to attend is one thing, getting them to join the church is another. Apparently, Webster Hills has found a way to connect their congregations.

Life Christian Church (Woody’s) now serves 2000 families. Feedback indicates that a significant percentage of their visitors come because they have visited Woody’s at a birthday party or heard about Woody’s from someone else.

Someone asked if we had made a study in relation to increasing our participation in room at the Inn. No study was needed. If the Church decides to go ahead with the CCLC, we will need to decide how many families we need to provide for, what facilities will be provided, and what provision for other emergency or disaster housing should be made.

We have had several meetings with City officials about a wide range of matters and ways we and the City might work together in improving the Park, in meeting needs of the community, and in handling emergencies, including emergency shelter of a large number of disaster victims. But zoning has not been discussed because it is not a factor in development of the CCLC.

The initial staff for the Webster Hills FLC was a full time janitor and a Director of FLC programming and scheduling. That building is about a third as large as ours would be. Our building would require more staff. Additional staff needs would be determined by the programs that are implemented.

On the one hand, the committee has been criticized because, some say, we have proceeded as if the CCLC was already approved and, on the other hand, we have been questioned as to why we don’t have answers for items that can only be determined after many others in the church, other than the committee, make numerous decisions. Other questions can be answered only after the Church authorizes preparation of plans and the design is completed.

Someone said broad based congregational support for the CCLC seems lacking and suggested more communication to the congregation about the effort and project. It’s not easy to demonstrate broad based congregational support because our congregation votes at a lower rate than voters in political elections. But when we gave the congregation an opportunity to vote on the CCLC in a survey in March, 2004, 62% of those voting thought that it was “most important” that the CCLC be built and 12% more thought that it was “important”. 74% of those voting thought that it was important that the CCLC be built. I couldn’t agree more about the need for more and better communication and discussion with the congregation. The questions and statements in our town meetings and on the blog indicate that the committee hasn’t communicated effectively with the congregation. We have to do a better job. We have surveys, topographic maps, church site plan, and preliminary site and building plans of the CCLC. Everything one would need to study development of a CCLC. On the question of “where” to build it on the properties MUMC owns or controls, I don’t think there is any room for doubt. The site across the street would allow us to build an attractive, simple, flexible, economical, user friendly CCLC building on an attractive site without affecting our existing facilities or operations, and with the least effect on the residential neighborhood. I will sit down with anyone who wants to, to go over the maps, surveys, and plans, answer questions, and explain how the committee arrived at our plan.

Percept data shows that 235,000 live in the nine zip codes where 90% of our members live. It shows that there were 80,000 people that did not have a church home and another 70,000 that had little or no active involvement with a church. 63,000 young persons live in this area and one third of them are being raised by a single parent or someone other than their parents. We see signs of troubled youth in our schools and in the community, and troubled youth mean troubled families. Does anyone doubt that many of these young people would be better off in a Sunday school or youth group of a loving, caring Christian Church. Does anyone doubt that the lives of many of these parents and other adults could be made better were they experiencing the love of Christ through a loving, caring, nurturing church. They need to have a church home and a church family. If we ignore these people in need, we are ignoring our vision to “reach out and draw more people to Christ” and our mission to – “Seek Christ, Share Christ, and Serve Christ.”

44% of those in the study area indicated they would like to have recreation from a church and 25% indicated that they would like to have contemporary worship. The CCLC can help us reach out and serve these people. We should reach out whether they become members or not. We are not in competition with other churches for members. We are in partnership with them to win people to Christ. Many of the area churches are doing a better job of it than we are. We should pray for their success and ours.

Some have asked, “How can we afford the CCLC when our Operating Fund giving has been flat and we can’t expand programs? Members give financial support to the mission of MUMC and the work of Christ in the world by:
1. Gifts to the Building Fund or Capital Campaigns.
2. Gifts to specific ministries.
3. Gifts to special appeals.
4. Gifts to the Operating fund.
On our blog, one member challenged us to do extraordinary things. When members have seen a need, they have always responded. In my opinion, their giving to the Building Fund and capital campaigns, to specific ministries and to special appeals has been extraordinary. I don’t believe enough members see the need to provide stronger financial support to the Operating Fund. Many must not realize that not only does it provide the funding for our worship services, classes, school, and programs, etc. but it is also the nucleus around which all of our ministries revolve. Without an adequate Operating Fund, we cannot provide the 200 ministries that members support with extraordinary financial gifts and extraordinary service. MUMC members have a history and a tradition of responding to the needs of the Church and the needs of others. I think they will now.

Pete Weitzel

As I read the comments on the Blog about the CCLC, I sense a lot of anxiety as we try to stretch in a new direction. That’s probably to be expected, but certainly not comfortable. There seems to be lots of questions (some unanswered), some misunderstandings, etc. but time will take care of the answers and I pray that our love for each other will help us grow in this difficult process, whether we build a CCLC or find another way to share Christ’s love with those in our community. I trust the answers to many questions will come through numerous communications between now and the time we decide if we want to move forward with this proposal.

Why is this important to MUMC? An important job of the church is to bring God’s love to others. MUMC does a pretty good job serving those outside our community (programs such as Centenary Cares, Epworth, Metro Ministry, Habitat homes, and many others, including mission trips to other countries). Music, drama, and PreSchool are some programs that come to mind when I think about programs that attract visitors; however, many of the rest of us don’t do so well in inviting others to worship (This is backed up by declining figures for first-time visitors over the last several years). If bringing God’s love to others is important to us, then we need to be inviting to the people just blocks or a few miles from our front door. How many times have we heard sermons that we need to invite people to worship, but as a congregation, we’re not getting the job done. Well, there’s no guarantee that a CCLC will produce X number of new Christians (and it’s OK if they don’t join MUMC, however our church would be the most likely place); but I believe we need to figure out some way to accomplish God’s mission for the church. If members think that the CCLC is a bad idea, then please help the committee that has spent several hours (years) studying and making this recommendation. CCLC is not the only way, but the optional way that the committee discerned. Whatever way is decided, I pray that our congregation will prayerfully decide how our church can reach out into the community to bring others to know Christ.

Much discussion seems to be about the location of Contemporary Worship. Those most involved in Contemporary Worship have said that the MUMC sanctuary is not the atmosphere needed for that service, and I trust their judgment. I don’t think anyone can guarantee that Contemporary Worship would take place in the CCLC but I admit it seems like the logical place. If Contemporary Worship decides to have two or three services in Fellowship Hall every Sunday, I’m sure our congregation will find a way to facilitate that service, still allowing space for fellowship and all of the other activities. This doesn’t provide a bigger space that Contemporary Worship needs, but addresses some of the problem, and I trust we’ll make it work.

There seems to be a lot of questions about what activities will take place in a CCLC. Who will a CCLC immediately serve upon opening? Here’s what I envision, but I’m probably overlooking several activities.
• people in the surrounding community (our congregation plus 30% of households around our church who do not have a church home)
• families looking for a reasonably priced meal in a healthy environment
• young people looking for a safe place to hang out
• retired persons who want a place to meet with others
• many groups needing meeting space (perhaps programs like computer classes for those who need them, after school tutoring, mentoring groups, older adult activities, groups to help parents, etc. These programs depend on our congregation as volunteers who have a vision for a ministry, engage others, and follow through)
• people (all ages) needing a place to exercise
• basketball leagues
• contemporary worship (if that’s determined to be the best place)
• space for storage, bicycle rehab, and large open space for Market for Missions (MUMW garage sale), and other

While the new sanctuary, music, and education space has not increased the membership as projected, it has attracted 300+ new members a year (we lose about 250 a year, so growth is minimal) . Would the new members have joined MUMC anyway (I don’t know but I wonder where we would have put them)! Few if any will argue that the new addition hasn’t been a blessing for our congregation, but it isn’t exactly what we predicted. We still aren’t an inviting congregation, but many good things have taken place that wouldn’t have taken place otherwise because of space shortage. And I believe all of us involved extended ourselves, stepped out into something with no guarantees, took on a challenge bigger than ourselves, and grew in our Christian faith. If we can see our way to build a community center, it won’t come with any guarantees but if it has God’s blessing, we and the community will reap spiritual rewards by activities that take place in that building. Those activities depend on us and how we see our role in the community. If not the CCLC, then please get involved and help our congregation find a way to be the church I know we can be!
In Christian love, Peggy Zimmerman

On three issues:
1. I attend the 8:00 traditional service, then consider the 9:00 contemporary my Sunday School Class. I have no objection to crossing the road to go from one to the other. I believe traffic can be routed so that would be safe for adults and children alike. People of God can come together anywhere even if it means crossing the street.
2. I would love to take my grandchildren to lunch in a Christian atmosphere that is clean and has good, reasonable priced food as opposed to a fast food place where a tv is blaring programs inappropriate for small children. It would be nice for my husband and me to have dinner out once in a while in an affordable, quiet place with other like-minded Christian people.
3. As seniors on a fixed income, it would be very nice to have a place to walk indoors…not everyone can afford to join a gym. Mall walking does not appeal to everyone.

I believe we can proceed with this project and at the same time be more evangelistic at bringing new people to MUMC. And WOW what we have to offer…there is something for everone and a place to do it.

However, I find myself scratching my head, wondering how many MUMC members can take a position on the CCLC without knowing the answers to the myriad of questions already asked through this blog (or those asked silently but not yet voiced).

After a little over two years on the Team, I had to take a break, so I no longer know about the current questions being studied by the CCLC team. But I do know that they have been (and probably still are) overwhelming, and the CCLC critical thinkers and strategic planners who give of their time and talents, deserve your prayers.

Having said that, however, I’d like to see all the questions/issues that are brought up on this blog answered by the CCLC Team somewhere, if not on the blog itself, then somewhere else because we’re not getting anywhere if MUMC doesn’t begin to ANSWER the issues. I know, firsthand, some of the answers. But many do not. Perhaps someone can begin to write what the CCLC Team has discussed on the topics brought up here in the blog, and even if those stances change due to new iniformation or clearer thinking, these written answers will begin to form an ongoing document that builds on itself. It will also stand as a working document divided into categories: financial, location, floorplan, future planned ministries, etc. for present and future members who eventually decide to plug into this topic. No church conference will ever have enough time to answer all the questions/issues. Every member deserves the best answer the leadership team has at the moment. After reading this ongoing document, MUMC members can either agree or disagree with it. And while the sanctuary was built on a conference vote of less than 150 members, I feel a full church vote on this could be healthy. Like Jim, I believe the entire process should be transparant. Like Dave, I believe that faith is at the CCLC core.

Since one out of every three households is unchurched in the nine zip codes where MUMC get 80% of its members (Percept), MUMC should do what Jesus did; . . .speak of love and acceptance, be relevant to the needs of our neighbors, be bold, and make a difference in the community it serves.

Terry Fairchild