Welcome to the CCLC Discussion Blog!
|
Thank you for visiting this site where you can enter your questions, concerns, opinions, and perspectives on the proposal to build a Community Christian Life Center for our church’s outreach. Of course, your comments should be respectful of those with whom you disagree and should be in reasonable tone and language. With that expectation, you may address this proposed outreach plan in any way you wish. |
 |
|
To make sure time and energy are not spent on extraneous subjects or that factual information is correct, staff and members of the CCLC exploratory committee will attempt to provide some guidance for the discussion. A couple of other ground rules are encouraged. Let’s not spend time on the subject of whether or not our church should seek to reach out to those without a church home. This is a basic mandate of the gospel and is a mission that applies to all Christian churches.
It is fair to: Question whether the proposed CCLC is the best or most timely method to reach out to draw more people to God=s love through our church. Suggest other ways to reach out. Wonder about the results other church=s have had with similar buildings. Suggest changes that may make the facility more useful for outreach and mission. Ask questions for information.
It is hoped that opinions and perspectives from both those who support this proposal and from those who do not will be posted. I hope this forum will be a lively and thought provoking site to help the congregation discuss this proposal. I invite your participation.
Grace and Peace, Carl Schenck Senior Pastor
INSTRUCTIONS: To add a comment to the discussion, click below where it says “# Comments >>”. You will be asked to give your name and email address, and then you may fill out the field to post your comment. Comments are subject to administrator approval before being displayed. NEW: Click here to view the PowerPoint presentation from the September 11, 2007 informational community meeting. |
September 15th, 2007 at 1:45 am
I would like to thank eveyone who attended the information meetings on September 5 and 11. If you were not able to attend, this blog has been set up to allow anyone to submit their questions, comments or concerns about the CCLC proposal. By working together we can discern the direction that we believe God is leading us to serve our community and our world. I look forward to reading the discusion generated by this blog. Again, thank you for your interest as we explore this idea.
October 6th, 2007 at 3:55 am
1. What has been the result of large bldg. projects for increasing membership in neighboring churches? St. John’s Lutheran on Manchester would be one example. Do we know what they have gained in better attendance, more membership involvement, etc? Do they offer the same type of facility that CCLC has proposed, such as cafe, book store, recreational facilities?
2. Did the study group look into a more modest facility, with the possibility of later expansion if warranted by growth in membership? Why has this option not been discussed?
3. Were specific studies done in relation to increasing MUMC’s participation in the Room at the Inn program? Has there been a dialogue with the City of Manchester regarding zoning if there is housing of homeless in an expanded program? Were there talks with the Sisters of Divine Providence, who administers the program about liability insurance, volunteers, coordination, etc.?
4. What is the projection for increased staffing, staff costs (including benefits) and yearly cost of operation and maintenance of the proposed facility?
October 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I work out of town during the week and was not able to attend the informational meetings held in September. Is it possible to post to the website a copy of the Power Point used in the presentaitons, or, a summary of the information presented.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I attended the informational meeting held on September 5. I am undecided and have mixed feelings about the proposed CCLC, so I went to the meeting to listen and learn. I became concerned when Barbara Brown tried to ask a question and was cut off. Later, she tried a second time to ask her questions and again, she was cut off. I was saddened and concerned about what was happening. Knowing Barbara, I approached her after the meeting to ask her “what just happend” and “why were you cut off”. She said that she had written a letter with her concerns about the CCLC. She gave me a copy of the letter. I went home and read the letter. I also pulled out the CCLC informational brochure that was mailed to my home. The very first thing I read was, “Your input is vital”. I couldn’t help but wonder, “Is my input vital?” Or, “Is my input vital only if it is in line with the CCLC Study group?” Barbara was asking difficult questions. I see that she was the first person to enter a response to this blog. I also read the quidelines for posting a response. I hope she gets a respectful response (and answers) this time.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Since this undertaking is new to MUMC, it would be helpful in the decision making process if we better understood the challenges, successes, etc. others faced when building such a facility. Would it be possible to contact 25+ churches of similar size to ours who have such a facility and find out more about their experiences? For me, that feedback would be very helpful.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Hello, Barbara. When attempting to post my response to your questions last night, they vanished somewhere into the Internet. Isn’t technology a wonderful thing? Here is another try:
1. Larger facilities increase membership, giving and participation. As an example, “Woody’s” in Fenton, is used frequently for children’s birthday parties. Many new members have come through that “door” to find out more about the church. Look at the expansion of our own church and the positive effect it has had on increasing membership, programs and ministries and our ability to reach out and serve others. At the end of 2001, our membership was 3,201. Today, it is just about 3,600. In 2007, we have 200+ ministries in which people may participate. I do not know what the number of ministries in 2001 was, but I imagine it was a smaller number.
2. The proposal currently under feasibility study was designed to maximize the facility for its potential uses, the layout of the property and cost considerations. Too often, we have heard concerns in other building programs that, “1. We built it too small and 2. we should have done this years ago”. The idea under current study is to be designed in a way that the complete shell will be built initially and interior finished as needed and funds become available. It is more economical to build the shell and finish it as needed than to build a smaller building and add on to it in piecemeal fashion.
Our job as the Study Team was to come up with a dream proposal. That is what we are testing. From 1996 to the present time, MUMC has raised nearly $10.8 million in capital funds for our current campus and future plans. Based on this past level of giving and preliminary discussions with our campaign consultant, we believe a project on this scale can be done. If the congregation chooses to do something on a smaller scale, then the concept will have to be reworked. It is our thought that we express our faith in God by the outreach we attempt. We want to inspire the congregation to be able to step out in faith to show our community what we believe and invite them to join with us.
3. No specific studies have been performed in relation to Room at the Inn. Part of the feasibility study is to gauge the congregation’s reaction to the various possible uses and ministries to be housed there. As part of the design and permitting process in the next phase (if approved by a Church Conference), biddable plans will be developed. Then we will have to go through the approval process with the City of Manchester and other governmental entities.
4. Operating costs of a new facility are always a fuzzy concept. As was mentioned in both study meetings an operating subsidy has been built into the capital needs projections. These funds would be used to operate the facility while the programs ramp up. As we work through the design process, we will be better able to identify operating costs and provide a better estimate before a church conference that will authorize breaking ground. With all that being said, look at our own example. When the current sanctuary was built, no doubt the same question was asked, and yet we don’t think about those costs now.
I hope this helps to answer your questions. Thank you for your input!
October 10th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
From our personal investigations, other church community centers have not been all that successful. With 2.7 million present indebtedness it does not seem timely to assume more debt at this time. With one quarter million, a small percentage, as opposed to nine million, I wonder how much we could do for marketing or evangelism using our present facilities. We are having trouble meeting our present expenses, howcan we afford to take on more debt?
October 12th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
In the last Messanger, Carl said that giving was only just keeping up with infaltion. How do we expect to run the CCLC if we can’t get ahead on the things we are doing right now?
October 15th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
1. Have the true needs of the community been determined? Have organizations, such as gov’t entities (Manchester, Winchester, Ballwin, etc., social support (Oasis, Missouri/St. Louis County social service agencies) schools, hospitals, nursing homes/assisted living facilities/older adults apartments, food banks, etc., have been contacted for their input?
2. Have the community sponsored fitness facilities (Des Peres, Ballwin, YMCA) been included in the needs assessments? Do we really need a full service fitness facility with these venus available?
3. Logistics of auto access to the facility considering Creve Couer restrictions, parking and people movement between the two buildings need to be a part of the “master plan”, not left to decision after construction begins.
4. Although a “cafe” may be desired, does it really have value? Are the logistics of location/staffing/costs/menu selection/food waste in the decision equation?
5. What are the estimated additional staffing and operating costs projections? These can’t be left to chance.
6. Broad-based congregational support for the CCLC seems lacking. Suggest more communication to the congregation about the effort and project.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Trish,
I asked Larry and Terry Fairchild to respond about all the research about and visits to other facilities similar to the proposed CCLC. While it is not 25+ facilities, it is an extensive list which gave the Team substantial information about these types of facilities. Their comments are:
Hi Steve:
At the beginning of the CCLC visioning period, Larry and I (mostly), along with a few others went to visit venues that were thought to have all, some, or at least one of the areas we were interested in. Here are the places we visited, many of them more than once:
Life Christian Church - Woodys Gym, Woody’s, Kitchen
First Baptist Church of Arnold - Gym, Contemporary service
Webster Hills United Methodist Church - building aspects, see Pete Weitzel - Food Pantry, Shepherd Center
The Family Church - Youth Program, Youth Contemporary Worship
The Samaritan Center- Jeff City - Food Pantry, training volunteers, galvanizing the incredible use of volunteers, data on how to get grants. They get more grants than almost any other 401c3 in the state of Missouri.
The Lodge - Recreation facilities
The Pointe - Recreation facilities
West County YMCA - Recreation facilities
Jewish Community Center in Chesterfield - Recreation facilities
We also spent considerable time on the phone finding out data on the following venues:
The Bridge - A Youth Center in Joplin
United Methodist Church in downtown Tulsa - -There are two churches ten miles apart and both have Family Centers that are very successful - Self funding
Highland Park Methodist Church - Dallas - Can’t remember
We have data on all these places, but that is buried in 5 boxes in our basement.
After all the research, we concluded that each venue did one thing - -maybe two things in a big way (successfully, efficiently, well-planned, cost effective, etc.) Not any one venue that we visited did all things well. Our hope was that MUMC would see what worked well and what didn’t and learn those lessons before we built. Also, our hope was to execute everything well. Our dream was to have the CCLC open at 6 am and closed by 11 PM (or so) and have almost every space teeming with activity all day long.
Hope this helps,
Terry and Larry
I cannot begin to comment on the time, effort and dedication Larry and Terry put into this project. The CCLC Exploratory Team is deeply indebted and thankful for the work that they did. This has not been an undertaking that was done lightly, nor was the process rushed. It has been a deliberate, studious effort with many hours of thought and research. I do not believe that in any of the visits, anyone asked would have said it was a mistake to build. On the contrary, the comment was, “We should have done this years ago”.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:34 am
A few comments and opinions on some of the points from above and elsewhere-
On the church’s existing indebtedness-
Although the $2.7 million sounds like a large number in absolute terms, it is not that significant in comparison to the asset value or “equity” that collateralizes it (well in excess of $10 million). The church has demonstrated an ability over the last three years to handle easily the debt service (principal and interest) on this obligation through it’s normal stewardship efforts.
After completion of construction of the state house, we will be able to state that the lion’s share of our indebtedness was incurred to support future expansion (land acquisition and construction of the state house). To use that indebtedness now as a block to future expansion doesn’t seem logical to me.
On competition with The Pointe and The Lodge-
An early version of the CCLC envisioned a full-service, fully outfitted fitness center charging membership fees in direct competition with the municipal facilities. That is not the current vision (although the space and flexible floor design would allow it to become that at any point in the future if we choose to go that direction).
The exercise and fitness opportunities will be provided by the gym, the running/walking track and the fitness/exercise classes to be held in either the gym or other rooms.
On the cafe-
In my view, the cafe should not be viewed as just one more food option in the Manchester corridor. It is not expected to be a culinary competitor with the other restaurants within a short radius. I expect that the menu will be simple and the food will be good. But it will compete based on the wholesome, safe, Christian, family atmosphere it provides.
On other similar facilities-
For every example of a life center that is struggling, we can cite one that is thriving. (I think there will be an upcoming post summarizing all of the facilities visited.) I believe two keys to a successful operation are flexible design which will allow the facility to adapt to the changing needs of the community and broad congregational support, whuch we are trying to generate.
On operating cost projections-
A comprehensive operating plan for the facility including revenue/cost and staffing projections can not be prepared until we finalize floor plans and determine the ministries that will occupy the space. Having said that, we have done a number of “what if” projections that give us confidence the facility can fairly quickly move to the point where it does not provide on drag on the church’s operating budget. These projections exclude the positive impact that expected congregational growth would provide. Our capital spending projections provide for modest losses during the ramp-up period.
No shovel of dirt will be turned on this facilty until a second church conference is held. At the second church conference (which assumes, of course, that the first church conference approved proceeding) we will have firm bids in hand, we will have negotiated financing terms with the bank(s) and we will have the results of the capital campaign. When we know exactly what is going to built and come to consensus on the ministries that will initially be housed there, we will also at this conference be able to present a summary of the operating plan including revenue and cost projections. I assure everyone they will not be “left to chance.”
October 17th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Previously submitted by Jim Bundstein Friday October 12. Due to computer error, posting has been delayed.
Comment:
OK, looking over the blog comments I really don’t feel that you answered
the questions that Barbara and Trish put forth.
1) First of all I think it WOULD be a good idea to look at other churches
that have built things like the proposed CCLC and see what it has done for
them. We are in an area where their are a lot of active and growing
churchs. I am from Missouri, you are going to have to show me that “larger
facilities increase membership , giving and participation”. I don’t know
what “Woody’s in Fenton” is but I would like more details.
2) I know that St. Joseph’s is working on building a new larger gym on
proprety that they ownand other churches have expanded too. Would we be in
compitation with other local churches for members?
3) For a proposal that could reach $9,000,000.00 or more I really don’t
like to see any “fuzz” on any part of it. I think right now folks would
like to see at least a ball park estimate of on going annual costs. Basic
costs of heating , cooling , staffing and the cost of furnature should be
easy to work out.
4) Has anyone made any guess as to how many new members we could likely
get with the CCLC? If we get 1,000 new members that would cost us
$9,000.00 each.
5) I must say that I went into the meeting on Sept. 5th with a fairly open
mind but I came out of it less inclined to support the CCLC than I was
before. Too many unanswered questions!
October 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I really appreciate the opportunity for this dialogue and hope others will take advantage of this blog. I am grateful for those who have been devoted to the research for the CCLC.
My belief is that by serving more persons, we will touch more hearts to go into the world to do Christ’s work. However, I wonder if we will call more people by doing more for others rather than building bigger and better? Will a huge facility with all of the latest high tech screens appeal to the unchurched and really deliver the right message? Perhaps in this day and age, that is what people expect and need. For example, I will be the first to say the I found the big screens helpful and a good visual tool for delivering the message. I am pleased that there is room for me to invite neighbors/family to come join us at church. Yes, it is probably important to be current to effectively reach the young, yet we need to be careful of what message the “stuff” delivers. What is our first priority?
I question that having two facilities for worship that are so far apart physically will create two separate congregations. Is it at all feasible to build as an attachment (wasn’t that part of an earlier plan) or to build closer? Having fellowship with all of the members helps us to work together as a church community and grow in faith together.
I would like to suggest that MUMC house a branch of Office of Creative Ministries so that we would more involved and could collaborate with this wonderful Methodist outreach to our neighbors, state, and nation in our mission work.
Just another thought regarding Fair Trade Store– Why aren’t we serving only Fair Trade coffee between services? Why are we supporting Starbucks rather than Fair Trade? Do we need to make a separate concession for this and other Fair Trade Products? Couldn’t we implement this right now?
There are many opportunities in west county and St. Louis for people to meet, to exercise, and to eat. There are also countless people and agencies needing help. I am assuming what we want to do is to offer an experience with Christ. As I ponder the CCLC, I wonder how we best serve Christ and insure that His word and work will continue in the future.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:04 am
There a few questions I have about the funding of the new CCLC. In Ohio, your apportionment payments were figured on how much you spent on yourself. So if improvements/new construction were done during the year, your apportionment payment to Conference increased the following year. The premise being, if you can spend on yourself you can spend on others. Is this the case in Missiouri?
Since we are being told that attendance is down and giving as well, how can you justify over-spending what you are receiving. The “Debt Free Living” seminar was something that could apply in this situation. It’s as if we are borrowing on a credit card in hopes that more people will come. Perhaps your investigations into the growth of churches who have undergone this type of building shows “if you build it they will come”. My concern is that it will be used by people in the area as a rec center only and the membership will continiue to experience the same decline that a lot of Methodist Churches are experiencing. I do believe it has taken longer to hit Manchester, but there has been a steady decline in membership throughout the country.
There is also concern about separating the Contemporary and Traditional worshipers. Sending one group across the street will not promote interaction. What happens with the children attending Sunday School? Will they be walking through the parking lot dodging cars to meet their parents? Can anything be built on the east side of the church?
It just seems there are a lot of questions not answered at this point. Unfortunately, we were out-of-town during the two presentations and perhaps these questions were addressed. If so, I apologize.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:56 am
Posted for J.J. Hancock:
Comment:
> My concern is mostly with the location. Why does the plan have to be to build it across Creve Couer Avenue? There is too much space to cross between buildings and leaves me with a feeling that it is an us and them situation. Those that use the CCLC will not cross to the church campus and those using the church campus will not cross to the CCLC campus. The churches where I have seen this done successfully, like Life Christian with Woody’s, have all of the building on one continuous campus, not across a parking lot and then a street.
>
> Early on, the building was thought to be used a lot by Manchester City, not just MUMC people and organinzations. By outreach, are we going to be running an off site part of Manchester City recreation/meeting complex? I heard, as part of this same discussion, that MUMC organizations would have to rent the rooms for meetings, etc. Is this true?
J.J. Hancock
October 21st, 2007 at 10:55 am
When you start talking about staffing for the CCLC, if the building was contiguous to the current buildings, we would not need to duplicate the nursery facilities and staffing because parents could drop off kids and still be close for worship, study, drama, or meetings. If we needed more space eventually, then nursery space could be set up, but it would not be necessary to start it off.
We would not need duplicate kitchen facilities to start off either, if the building was part of the same complex and not across the parking lot. I think that it would be a much better case to have the CCLC right next to the current buildings. I do not know the best place to put it, but it should be connected to the current buildings with parking surrounding the complex.
JJ Hancock
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Glad to have the Blog available and to read the great comments by others who want our church to be successful. The Blog is only visible with one of our computers and searches with words such as, blog or CCLC did not work. To debate this issue, this problem should be addressed.
I went to the Sept 11 meeting and was reminded that the CCLC was part of a plan developed during the planning of the current new church addition. In that regard, milestones or projections were made for the new church. It is my understanding that after those projections were reached, the CCLC would to be built. Could you provide us with those projections? It appears that the church membership has only grown by 400 since 2001. The 9 million dollar new church addition attracted only 400 new members, which is about $22,500 per new member. A much better estimate of active membership or those willing to contribute dollars for CCLC construction would be the monthly attendance figures. Attendance was down in August, perhaps as much as 7% from last year. September attendance figures should be available and those should be looked at closely. My points are 1) we need to know if the new church addition met its goal for membership growth, 2) the CCLC should not be built until this goal is met, 3) a new membership benchmark for the CCLC is needed, 4) with our current attendance decreasing, this is not a good time for a 9 million dollar construction project, 5) with our current giving flat for the last few years and the need to increase our giving this year to avoid jeopardizing operations and programs (Carl’s sermon Oct 21), this is not a good time for a 9 million dollar construction project, and 5) paying off our current debt would be a worthwhile goal before attempting a new construction project.
People like belonging to an active church, a church that can make a difference. Getting more members involved in community activities and services would probably do more to get new members than a new CCLC, certainly cost less, and do more for the community.
The construction of the CCLC could be a very divisive issue, if not handled properly. This Blog is one way for members to vent. The approval process is biased favoring approval over disapproval. For approval of our last addition, only members attending the meeting that voted on this issue were counted. Many members not active in the church will not attend this meeting and not financially support the CCLC construction. One way to eliminate this inherent problem is to require a certain minimum percentage of the active church membership be present at the meeting to vote (a quorum). While probably not a Methodist Church requirement, a quorum could be set by our church for passage of this important issue.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:45 am
I agree with many others that this is not the right time to build onto our campus. Building “bigger” is not likely to bring us a big increase of membership. We are to be good stewards of our resources and right now we are not filling up the worship space that we have.
If our contemporary service wants more space, it should be moved into the sanctuary to a later time slot (like 11:00) to attract more of the Unchurched who are not as likely to get up early on a Sunday morning. I believe this was of the original theories behind having the contemporary service in the evening.
Finally, I believe that putting a new space across the road that will be used for worship services will be very devisive to our church.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Submitted for Herb Walker:
We have stayed over night in a number of CCLCs when going on mission trips. My grand children have been involved in sports activities where they used CCLCs for their sports (basket ball, volley ball, and more), Woody’s was just one of those. By the way they have good food there. I wish everyone could see the Asbury Methodist Church CCLC in Tulsa. Outstanding!!
I have prayed for Manchester United Methodist Church and the CCLC asking God’s for direction. My hope is everyone will pray about this.
As far as having to go across the street for the CCLC and I understand some people have a problem with that, I have seen them both ways. If Jesus had to go to a mountain side to preach to the 5000 can’t we go across the street?
I do not like it if someone was cut off when asking questions about the CCLC (Barb Brown) and I was not at that the first meeting to see it. That is not right but at the same time I do not think the battle cry should be off with their heads and the CCLC because of a human mistake. We all make mistakes. I think the second meeting was better because the leaders were better prepared thanks to the first CCLC meeting.
Please join me in PRAYER about this!
IN GOD WE TRUST!
Herb
October 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I am disappointed that each Sunday morning, attendance seems to decline at the 9 a.m. traditional worship service — which leads us to wonder, why can’t the contemporary worship service be held in the sanctuary at 9 a.m. It is my understanding that the focus of the CCLC is to give the contemporary worship service a larger “home.”
I’m afraid that having that service in a completely separate building would divide the congregation — something we definitely do not need.
Buildings are not necessarily what attracts people to a particular church. It is the evangelism, outreach, music, preaching, programs, education and more within the church. Given the fact that we do not fill the present sanctuary and seemingly have not grown as a result of its being built (though we supported its building campaign), I feel we should not commit to spending millions on CCLC.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
It is wonderful to read all the thoughtful responses in this blog and be apart of all the discussions that surround this topic of outreach and the CCLC proposal. It is very uplifting to witness the desire to bring more people to Christ and the desire to be good stewards with our resourses when considering how to reach out to others.
I would like to share some of my views on this topic. First, Contemporary Worship is no longer just an experiment. It is an amazing success and represents an enormous potential to bring people into a more meaningful relationship with Jesus and to expand our faith community. In my view, Contemporary needs a first rate worship space that fits that style of worship and has the space to grow. Our current sanctuary is absolutely a first rate space for traditional worship, but (in my opinion) does not fit well as a Contemporary worship space or the style of worship. I also find the CCLC proposal of sharing the space with a gym a bit difficult to envision as a first rate worship space as well. Ideally I would like to see the worship and fellowship spaces as part of our current campus, but I also understand there are practical considerations. I know in speaking with several people who attend Contemporary worship that the issue of having that worship service in another building and being separated is a huge concern and a very emotional issue. It’s not about the walk, it’s about the interaction of people and families. Issues like: Will Sunday school for the kids be separated between the buildings? Will there be seperate fellowship spaces in the buildings? I believe there needs to be more thought on these issues before final decisions are made.
On the issue of space. No matter what happens we are not going to grow in membership without more space. The morning pre-school is full and has a waiting list. We need more space for Sunday school for the kids on Sunday. We need more space for adult Sunday school. We need more space for M&Ms on Wednesday nights. So in my mind, there is no doubt we need more space in order to facilitate further outreach. The CCLC will certainly help provide more needed space.
When considering my feelings about the CCLC proposal I really wrestled with the question on whether this is our best use of money in serving Christ. Are we being selvish and building the CCLC mostly to fulfill our own needs? However, then I thought about what our church is like on Christmas and Easter. Where are all those people the rest of the year? Along similar lines, we saw some research at the Leadership Summit that shows there are over 20,000 people in our area who affiliate themselves with the Methodist church who do not attend church regularly. There are even more people who say they are Christian and do not attend a church. I believe the CCLC is a way for those folks to ease back into a faith community. They will be able to use these facilities without having to come too close to the actual church building and hopefully after a time interacting with the caring folks of MUMC, they might make that trip across the parking lot. The CCLC building also provides away to invite people into our space (for meetings or just coffee) in a very non-threating way. This also makes it easier for people to actually invite people to MUMC.
So for me, even though the price tag is high, I think we do need the space, and we do need to reach out to those people in our community who at least have some faith inclination to help them grow in their faith, and the CCLC fulfills these needs.
I will continue to pray on this as I’m sure so many others are. I’m sure God will nudge us towards the direction we need to head.
Dan
October 26th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
It is wonderful to see so many people engaged in thought and dialogue on how we should proceed with the CCLC topic. We are a blessed church and we have many yet to be reached.
I went into the informational meeting completely convinced we needed a CCLC building. I had come from a church in Knoxville, TN and a church in San Antonio, TX which had successful and thriving CCLC buildings. I am sure they engaged in such dialogue as they were making their decisions as well. I had the unique opportunity to visit a very thriving, outreach based church in Kansas City two years ago. I was absolutely blown away by how active that church was and how EVERYONE in the community was touched in some way by the church.
As I sat and listened to the questions at the meeting, I asked myself if I had considered all of the other issues as well. I profess that I don’t completely understand our debt and budget needs. I know that personally my family wants to give more, so we try to give of our time when more dollars just does not yet seem possible. The conclusion I came to was where I started, I felt that as a congregation we did need to build the CCLC.
I understand that it is scary, it is perhaps somewhat risky, and I know that many members understand the finances much better than I will ever be able to. I also know that there are as many people out there not involved in a community of faith as there are people who are involved. I know that our space is overflowing and we are out of room. I know that there are several ministries we could have which would reach individuals in our immediate community and beyond if we only had more space to house them. I know that the contemporary service seems to be thriving and is an energetic option for Sunday morning worship. They are out of room. For me, I do not feel that the space between the buildings will be an issue. I could be naive. I see both buildings as potential to house multiple ministries and programs and each full at any given time.
As I think about this and pray about this, I see this as an opportunity for us to say, “We at Manchester UMC are committed to growth of God’s church!”. I personally don’t always like change, but I have come to realize that with change comes tremendous growth. What will this next period of growth offer for us or to someone God loves who maybe hasn’t felt that love just yet? Is the CCLC the answer? As a church, we will ultimately decide.
Blessings to all as we consider such an important topic.
Karen
October 28th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I still think the main question is one of where do we get the biggest bang for our buck. So far I am not getting the answers I want to hear. Nothing so far has given me a warm, safe feeling about this project.
Tom Helton said; “For every example of a life center that is struggling, we can cite one that is thriving.” That suggests to me a 50% success rate for these things. I hope I am wrong.
He also said; “A comprehenesive operating plan for the facility including revenue / cost and staffing projections can not be prepared until we finalize floor plans and determine minisrties that will occupy the space”
Again this sounds to me like this is not a well thought out plan if no one knows who or what will be going into the building except for a couple of basketball courts. I would like to have a better handle on these things before going forward.
Also, I think the comments about the location are very serious and should be given serious thought. I expect that when Jesus gave his sermon to the 5000 from the mountain side he only had a few wandering donkeys to consider. Today we have several hundres SUVs and mini vans rushing down the street and whipping into and out of parking spaces between services to make moving between buildings a safe or pleasent thing to do. The weather: rain, snow, sleet and the extreme heat of St. Louis are all things that make the treck across the parking lot and crossing the street less than desirable.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I would appreciate specific measures of what our objectives are for CCLC (other than self-supporting within a specific period of time, which has been expressed). For example, is there a number of non-members that we want it to serve in a given period of time (per week, per month)? If we have a certain number of members that we expect to be generated by the foot traffic, what is it? Even a reasonable range would do?
Based on those objectives, do we have examples of CCLC’s that have achieved that sort of change? At those churches, what do they think are the keys to that success? Are those things we can do? Want to do?
As a trustee, I believe we have substantial borrowing capacity and the church has demonstrated the ability to raise significant capital. However, those resources should be used in a manner that best meets our goals.
I am concerned about the distance between the buildings from a church community standpoint. I am sure we are not the only church that has faced real estate constraints that force it to build in a less convenient spot. How have others bridged this gap? God has brought amazing talent to this church. Perhaps you are the one with the ideas on how to keep the community together when the buildings must be separate?
October 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Diane and I support the proposal for the CCLC and are prepared to increase our giving for it. There are three reasons for our support of the proposal.
1. This is a bold move and MUMC needs to make bold moves. We have been blessed with many resources and capabilities. We need to respond to these blessings. And frankly, we can use a bold move to energize us right now.
2. Carl spoke in a recent sermon about the need in churches for big, “anchor” ministries. We need to establish a new anchor ministry that provides opportunities for our members to minister to the community in dimensions of physical, educational, community and social needs. This is a developing frontier for churches. It will likely become a norm for churches of our size and capability as a means to attract prospective members.
Our current physical plant is not designed for this ministry.
3. Churches in the future, particularly those having large property bases, may come under challenge to their tax advantaged status as revenue pressures build on governments. While this many never occur to MUMC, demonstrating our service to the community through a community ministry building and program speaks better as an argument against it than words we may speak.
This third reason is not primary for us–it is a much smaller reason in our minds than the first two–but it is not a possibility that can be dismissed as unthinkable.
Tom Lawrence
October 29th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I like the discussion and the tolerant tone in which even significant disagreements are voiced; this bodes well for our church. Questions about the purposes of a CCLC aside, I have some basic concerns about resources:
1. We’ve apparently gained only about 400 members since 2001 and the completion of our newest addition.
2. In a sermon Carl gave some months ago, he emphasized a decline in our church over the last several years in first-time visitors and urged a marketing campaign to correct this.
3. Two Sundays ago, Carl spoke about how our payment of pledges, while successful in some respects has leveled off in recent years.
So…in view of a somewhat inadequte number of new members, not enough visitors to sustain a growing church, and a flattening of giving, how can we consider such a large new project?
Again, I’m not against the CCLC’s purposes as stated. I simply think we’re not thinking through whether we can afford it now.
October 29th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Growth of our church is a wonderful thing to strive for! I gladly encourage it and want to see growth of our congregation happen. However, this proposed undertaking should not be approached purely with “the power of positive thinking”. It truly needs to be thought out by each MUMC member seriously. Each one of us will be affected by the decision, and I feel input from each member is essential. Many will choose not to write on this blog because his or her name must be stated. I feel strongly that members should have the opportunity to respond on paper anonymously, if this blog is not a comfortable place to express their ideas. Somehow this must be more inclusive, and it’s valuable to hear everyone’s opinion. I also believe the suggestion made that we ultimately require a quorum to vote on this project is a wise one.
While realizing that this center may prove to be the answer to our dreams of great congregational growth, I share many of the same concerns as previously addressed by others. I feel that we need to always be good stewards of the gifts we already have, and appreciate the amazing facility and resources with which we are currently provided. Surely some of the existing rooms could be used more effectively. The sanctuary is huge and wonderful, and with the large altar area, it certainly is conducive to contemporary worship. It has already proved to be amenable to dramatic productions which require a stage, as well as elaborate concerts. Could we not adjust our worship schedule to accommodate a contemporary service in the sanctuary?
The existing building’s architectural plan was designed to provide for an addition. Would it not be wiser stewardship to attach whatever rooms are necessary for expansion onto the existing structure? Certainly it would be a more affordable choice, and more importantly, it would keep the congregation unified. I fear as others have cited before that the separation of the buildings will only prove to be divisive. It’s simply impractical to have to cross an expansive parking lot in inclement weather with children in tow to join up with whatever other family members or friends are in the OTHER building!
We must take into serious consideration the drop in attendance and giving. If we can’t meet our goals for those in our current building, then we need to understand why that is and turn the tide before taking on huge new debt. If it’s true that there are an estimated 20,000 “lapsed” Methodists in our area, then why aren’t they coming to MUMC now? Surely it’s not for our lack of a track or a gym or a coffee shop! Jesus drew crowds of people with Love and with Words, not with entertainment resources. Let’s first examine what perhaps is lacking within before moving too hastily beyond.
October 29th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I completely agree that bold moves are in order….
My thoughts . . .
I really do not like to think of marketing when it comes to the church. It doesn’t feel right to me somehow. But, if we must then let’s be honest about some perceptions of our church in the community. When a friend asks you where you go to church and you tell them MUMC do you often hear “Oh that BIG ONE at Manchester and 141?” Or maybe it even goes like this, you tell them you belong to MUMC and you see confusion on their face so you jump in to clarify, “You know, that BIG ONE at Manchester and 141.” I confess I have done that and not without some pride.
I do not question the intent of anyone involved in the CCLC project, past or present. I do worry that a building of the type being considered may strengthen the perception in the community that we are the big church, the wealthy church, and the church that spends lavishly on itself. It could have an adverse effect. Again, I don’t think that is the intent of anyone involved, but I’m considering perception in the marketplace.
I wonder what would happen to our reputation in the community, not to mention our marketability, if we did something REALLY bold, really radical. What if we, as a congregation, contributed $9 million over the next 9 years to fund mission endeavors of every type in the city, in Nicaragua and in Mozambique while continuing our current 200+ ministries to our own community? Would the word spread that the folks at the BIG ONE are doing some serious Gospel stuff? Would people want to come be a part of a church making that kind of difference in the world? What kind of difference would it make in us?
What if we did something so bold and so radical as to unite rather than divide ourselves over worship style? Are we bold enough to sit together and prayerfully consider how we might worship together rather than separately as a faith family? This could eliminate our current worship space issues (both too full and too empty) for some time to come. Would it do us any good in the marketplace to be the church that conquered the unifying purpose and call of Christian worship as opposed to offering another list of possible menu options to an already option-rich consumer?
I just think if we were less focused on increasing numbers and buildings and could place our focus on mission to the point of spending as much money on those needs as we are willing to spend on our own buildings AND if we could be more concerned about loving one another enough to do things like compromise on our own hang ups about worship music (my “traditional” self included!) then…
. . . then we might very well find ourselves needing bigger buildings!
Churches brand themselves and their worship and they build big buildings every day. I wonder to what end really? I wish we could take a road less traveled.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Friends - My wife and I had an incredible faith experience this past weekend that I wish to share with you. This experience has certainly impacted my feelings on the CCLC. It all began with the invitation of two long-time friends to join them at the Saturday 4:30 p.m. service of Windsor Community Church in the Chesterfield valley near the airport. While we attend MUMC on Sundays, we had not seen these friends for some time and had decided to join them on Saturday for service followed by dinner together.
We arrived at Windsor church at about 4 p.m. and for the next 90 minutes God’s spirit moved my heart. Upon entering their new building, the energy and vibrance was contagious as people hugged, laughed and talked over coffee around the church’s newly constructed cafe.
As we walked further into the building, we discovered the Windsor Church Bookstore where folks were browsing through books on religion, parenting, marriage, divorce, grief, and many more of life’s milestones. It was incredible to watch the teenagers and young adults listening to the latest christian music CDs while families with small children browsed the selection of Christian children’s books. I overhead others getting copies of last week’s sermon and music and yet others looking at some of the Windsor clothing apparel available for sale. The Windsor bookstore is open on Monday through Thursday from 9:30am-3:30pm. It’s also open before, during, and after each of our weekend services on Saturday and Sunday.
As we continued to explore the Windsor Church building, we found what they call “The Loft.” This is a multipurpose space for young and old alike. It features a stage, kitchen, cafe area, pool table, offices and more on the first level. It also includes a very busy music recording studio as part of the church’s mission to provide a Christian environment for aspiring musicians to use the gifts God has given them. Upstairs in “The Loft” is a multi-purpose meeting space along with shuffle board, foosball and other recreational games. Recently, “the Loft” has become a popular Saturday evening gathering place for church and unchurched families and friends to enjoy live music, good food and and Christian fellowship in a safe environment. Talk about making a difference in lives - WOW!
As we entered their sanctuary/auditorium I expected there to only be a handful of people attending the service. Boy, was I wrong. There were probably over 300 people there and it was a Saturday night!!! Even more incredible to me was how many of those attending appeared to be in the teens and twenties. WOW again! The music was incredible as were the video and images that supported the music, the preaching and the entire worship experience. This was made possible by a space that was specifically designed to touch your senses and heart visually, audibly and physically.
There is so much more I could share with you about what I call my “God experience” at Windsor Church this past Saturday. Suffice it to say, Windsor is a church on the move. It is a church who has heard God’s call and is reaching out to people in a way that is unintimidating, in a way that is about relationships and fellowship and it is using a physical building as a catalyst for this outreach. As a result, Windsor is growing faster than they ever imagined I am told. As I left Windsor Church this past Saturday night, I couldn’t help but wonder, no, I couldn’t help but believe that God is calling MUMC to also be a new and vibrant place to experience God in our community — a place for the churched and the unchurched alike to share coffee and and a sandwhich — a place were teenagers and young adults can experience God’s “house” on a Saturday night — a place where grieving persons can find a book of hope — a place where a single mom can escape for a few hours to excercise and know that her child is safe.
I really believe that there are many people who won’t come to church for worship (at least at first) but they would come to church for a parenting class, or teen mother class, or a health fair, or a grief support group, or a infertility group. I envision the multipurpose and meeting space of the CCLC being a flexible and modern space that can accommodate these and many other outreach ministries.
I believe that worship is an important part of our church and our relationship with God and one another. But for the unchurched, sometimes their introduction to Christian faith and compassion begins outside of worship — sometimes it begins when when they have a life event that creates a need — for it’s in those times of change, pain, uncertainty, loss, searching, etc. that MUMC through the CCLC can provide the necessary resources in a local, safe and comfortable environment. Half the challenge can be just getting them through the door/across the threshold and into the building. Once they comfortable inside our CCLC doors, they may feel comfortable inside our sanctuary doors eventually too.
Attending Windsor Community Church opened my eyes. I believe God is calling us to reach out in the name of Christ at home and abroad. In that spirit, my family and I will support the CCLC financially and through prayer and presence. In that spirit, I am taking the leap and going to Nicaragua this February with the VIM group.
As we each prayerfully consider whether to move forward with the CCLC, I am reminded of the story of Jesus, the disciples and the feeding of the masses. As I recall the story, the disciples were positive that given the few fish and loaves that they had there was absolutely no way they could feed the bellies of the crowd. Similarly, it might be tempting for us to believe that given our tight budget, there is no way we could build a CCLC to feed the spirit and souls of the masses of West County and beyond. Yet, with Christ at their side, the crowd was fed. I believe that Christ is with MUMC and with him at our side and faith in our hearts we can make the CCLC a shining beacon of God’s love and compassion to our community. Don’t take my word for it — go visit Windsor Crossing Church one weekend and see for yourself what a leap of faith and Christ-centered building can accomplish in people’s lives. (Windsor Church 114 N. Eatherton Rd, Chesterfield MO 63005).
Thanks for letting me share my “God experience” with you. I can feel that God is at work and invite you to join me in spreading the good news.
Jim Peich
November 1st, 2007 at 11:29 am
IMPORTANT NOTICE
All previous Blog messages shown as from me, Phil Estes, WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ME. The SENDERS experienced technical difficulty with sending their notes. Since I am the technical site administrator, I have the ability to assist them with posting THEIR Blog messages. As a result, I did post some messages FOR THE AUTHOR. They were not written by me.
Thank you,
Phil Estes
Business Adminstrator
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 am
It is exciting to read all of the comments and hear the “buzz” being generated by the proposed CCLC. I also think it is refreshing that we, as a church family, are able to open our hearts and minds to hear what others have to say, whether we agree or not! This is healthy for a vibrant church community and MUMC is in fact such a Christian place. I believe the “concept” of a CCLC is something God is calling us to do for a variety of reasons:
#1: Many of the challenges facing MUMC at this time in our history are caused by facility/space issues. Contemporary Worship, as stated by Dan Dorrance above, is thriving since its inception and is revitalizing worship for many. It is also attracting new visitors and members to MUMC. The simple fact is we are out of space for any additional growth for this ministry. By expanding Contemporary Worship to a second service in our current campus we will put even greater stress on other areas such as fellowship time, Sunday School, Fair Trade Market and other ministries that require space on Sunday mornings. If we are called to “make disciples” through this service or any other ministries…we simply don’t have room for them in our current facilities without asking something else to be sacrificed.
#2: We have attempted to embark on a “marketing campaign” to attract new members to our congregation. CCLC would be a vital part of any effort to attract new members through a variety of programs and attractions. There is no doubt in my mind that a new Christian Community Life Center would attract many people to our campus who would not otherwise participate. The possibilities in this facility are endless…if we can dream it we can make it happen. I am impressed with Jim Peich’s experience at Windsor Community Church in Chesterfield as described above. This is what we should be focused on in discerning God’s will for our future. Let’s not get hung up on the financials or details of the plan at this point in time. Instead let’s listen for God’s voice in our midst…does He want us to “make disciples?” If the answer is “yes,” then let’s approve the CONCEPT of CCLC and move to the next phase in the process where we can hammer out all of the necessary details.
#3: Finally, I believe MUMC has a responsibility to be bold and risk taking as we are the largest United Methodist church in the entire Conference. We would be shirking our responsibility as leaders in a declining faith if we didn’t look for new ways to grow and “make disciples” in our faith. By improving our campus and adding needed space and services we are extending a blanket invitation to the community to be a part of our faith. The possibilities are virtually endless with the CCLC. Unless the majority of our church members intend to go door-to-door “making disciples” this is the best way to “attract” people to our campus and ministries. If we worry too much about paying for it we are missing the point. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called “risk-taking mission and service.”
I pray that this process will unite our congregation in faith and help all of us to be better Christians and stewards of the many blessings God has given us and our church community. Blessings and peace to all who care so deeply about our church to be part of the dialogue and the decision making process! We are truly blessed!
Brian Hill
November 5th, 2007 at 8:05 am
As I read the contributions to this blog, I can sense the anxiety that this initiative is creating. I think that it is important to remind ourselves that this is natural and normal and even healthy. All significant change brings with it this anxiety. My primary interest with this message, however, is to try to reframe some of the discussion.
Much of the discussion to this point has been centered around physical aspects of the facility, how it will be utilized, or financial questions. I have had the benefit of sitting in on some of the CCLC Committee meetings and interim presentations over the past year or so. I am reasonably confident that when everyone has the opportunity to be exposed to the tremendous number of issues and amount of detail that have been worked through by this committee, we will see that they have been talking and listening to a lot of people, both within and outside the church.
What has been very encouraging to me is the ongoing learning that has taken place as this project has evolved. The committee has very intelligently recognized that it is impossible to predict with a perfect crystal ball how the facility will be used over time and they have built flexibility into the design to accommodate that. They have done many other things too numerous to mention such as utilizing highly sophisticated financial modeling techniques to examine multiple potential scenarios and they have prudently built that knowledge into the plan. They have spent hours upon hours in dialogue with people to understand the issues and develop appropriate solutions.
The major issue that we face, however, is not this building. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if this congregation becomes committed and inspired to do this, the physical and financial questions will become second order questions.
The bigger question is whether we as a faith community are ready to step out – ready to step out of our four walls, ready to embrace our broader community, ready to fulfill our mission of making disciples for Christ. I was especially inspired by Chris’ sermon yesterday when he suggested that we need to get our feet firmly planted on the ground and then start to push out, push beyond where we are today.
We have gone through several church reassessments over the last few years. Starting several years ago, there has been one theme that has come through consistently in all of those exercises and that is that we tend to be inwardly focused as a church. We are doing a reasonably good job in Seeking and Serving (serving our own spiritual needs and serving those individuals in significant need). Where we fall down as a church is in reaching out to others who are still searching, those that have not found God or a church. The encouraging point in all this is that we have gone from it being an emerging awareness to where it is now becoming a consistent topic of discussion within the leadership group discussions.
Our most significant challenge is not the configuration or location of those walls of the CCLC. Our real challenge is what we do within those walls. Are we ready as a faith community to step up to that challenge? Are we ready to put in the hard work? Are we prepared for the inevitable missteps as we attempt to learn how to reach out to others? If there was ever a time when we needed leaders to emerge to help craft that vision for outreach, it is now.
I vividly remember the anxiety we went through as a church when we were deciding whether to build the sanctuary. At that time, like now, we tended to be focused on the facility and financial questions. Once it was built, those issues disappeared and the real issues emerged – what we needed to do to continue to evolve and grow as a church (I am referring to growth as a spiritual community, not membership numbers). As we have seen, since we built the sanctuary the church has gone on to flourish. You can feel it every time you enter the facility. The question we now face is whether we unintentionally are going to be keeping all of this to ourselves. Are we going to be keeping this light under the bushel basket or are we going to step out and find ways to share it with others?
While there is still plenty of work for the CCLC Committee to do, they have done much of their job. We now have to turn the spotlight on ourselves and do a “gut check” to determine if we are ready for the real challenge. At every turning point in our church history, members of our congregation have stepped forward to take our church to the next level. I am excited to see who those people will be at this new juncture.
May we as a faith community continue to glorify God.
Yours in faith always,
Merle Symes
November 6th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I am writing from the perspective a newer member at MUMC. About 20 months ago, I came to MUMC for the first time. I have only experienced us as we are now. I’d like to address two issues: cost and measuring success by only counting new members.
Cost
When I think about the dollars that were asked of the members 10 years ago, and compare the amount with what we are asking now (adjusted for inflation), we would need to be asking for $14 million or more. Put it this perspective, it is not as daunting a figure; and, we have 400 new members added to help finance as we go forward. In fact, we learned at the church meeting that we were able to raise $10.5M in the last decade. So, we are asking for less adjusted for inflation and we have raised more than we are asking for in the past.
Counting Members or Mission/Ministry Growth?
Many writers have spoken about our growth of 400 members. There are many mainline churches that would be envious of such growth; but many newer non-denominational churches are growing faster. Yes, it is fact is that traditional church membership is declining and we are not alone in noticing worship declining in our traditional services. However, new models are thriving within denominations that take a fresh look at worship and everything else that it means to be a church today.
The Contemporary Worship is more than a change in service; it is a change away from traditional pews and altars. So moving it to the sanctuary will not work. We need to reflect the vibrancy of this worship with a setting commensurate to it. We must make a commitment to this service in the way that first time visitors expect when looking for a contemporary service.
Yes, we are a big church as one member noted. And, when people comment about our size, I also tell them: “Yes, but we are a friendly church that does so much mission work from the smallest like Meal-a-Month to covenant relationship with Centenary all the way to international mission trips and everything in-between!” And, I tell them that there are over 200 ways to serve here! A measure of a healthy church is more than membership numbers; it is what we do as the hands and feet of Jesus.
As I remark about how many different ministries and opportunities to serve that we offer today, I wonder how it all got started. When did we need to move to a catalog of opportunities? I wonder how many community missions and ministry ideas have sprung to life in the last decade? For example, our covenant relationship with Centenary did not exist 10 years ago. And, Carl has spoken of how generous we are in our mission giving. We are also generous in human service hours as well. Carl said that over all giving increases when new building projects begin, so I am confident that we will again grow in mission ways again. The excitement of seeing the CCLC come to life will spur new ways of thinking for new mission opportunities besides those contained within its walls.
The Timing is Perfect
Apart from the fact that we need more space for ourselves, we must change our approach to bring new families to MUMC. It is apparent that with our current building that we have reached a plateau in attracting first time visitors. We cannot continue to do the same things we do now, and expect different outcomes in growth. The 2005 Percept data shows that we have a substantial number of people who could be attracted to us. The CCLC can make a fresh impact to them. By this, I mean not only younger people but established families and seniors as we use the CCLC in new ways to attract them. We are a vibrant church in what we do and this enthusiasm to serve will ignite many to serve Christ who may not have joined us as we are now.
Now is the time to be do something boldly different. As Manchester Highlands begins its development, we have an opportunity to enjoy whatever unknown synergies that draw more people to Manchester. The timing could not be better for us to dovetail with this overall Manchester marketing endeavor with our own expansion.
I am a grateful benefactor of a capital campaign vote taken about 10 years ago. I have been blessed by those who did not know me, and I know unknown others will be blessed should we go ahead with bold plans for the CCLC. I will be voting to continue with the next steps in our process.
In Christ,
Maureen Jordan
November 13th, 2007 at 8:58 am
At the CCLC meeting we attended on Sept. 11, Steve Varley said, paraphrasing, that if the survey results did not show overwhelming support for a CCLC, the project would not go forward. This Sunday we found out that the survey did indeed go out to the congregation and that results were tabulated.
Joanne and I did not receive a survey. We were wondering how the survey was handled in the following ways.
Were participants chosen at random
If not randomly chosen, how were participants chosen
What were the questions on the survey
What were the specific results of the survey
Why has the church conference and vote, previously scheduled for this November, been postponed until sometime in 2008
It seemed obvious by the insert in the bulletin that the results of the CCLC survey were not overwhelmingly in favor of the CCLC, but because the actual data has not been released, it is difficult to tell exactly where the surveyed members stand. We would like to see the actual results of the survey and not an interpretation of the survey. We would like to look at the data and come to our own conclusions.
We also strongly believe that all members of the congregation are entitled to the same information. These results, we feel, should be published not only on the blog, but also in the bulletin or better yet presented on the big screens at services over the next few weeks. The members need to see the actual survey results, much like we are presented the actual pledge commitments and updates to giving as the year progresses. There have been several presentations over the past few months by those in favor of the CCLC concept. It is now time to see where the congregation stands, as reflected in the actual survey results.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Some of you will read what I am about to write and be disturbed at its implications. Not because there is a hidden agenda or something implicit between the lines. I believe some of you will feel the way that I do and llike so many in the bible and history, we will want to dodge the fundimental truth that we as Christians understand but often can not easily face. First we are all loving , thougthful and correct in our comments and concerns. Second, we all have our lives, families and security to concern ourselves with. Third, we all feel at one time or another that we have done all we can or even that we feel we have done our part now it is someone elses turn.
While all these responses are real and valid I believe that they are the wrong answers. The correct answer is act on Gods call to share his abundance. We do not own what we are blessed with we are mearly keepers of Gods abundance. Nothing Christ asked us to do is “safe” or “finished” or “enough”. As long as we breathe we are asked to be fishermen, we are asked to be living examples of Christ. If Christ can die on the cross for us the least we can do as a body of 3000 people is to take a risk. I believe we are an abundant church with extraordinary resorces and while fiscal conservatism is important and concerns about use and competition of other facilties in the area is just. We are missing the biggest picture. When God has called our church body to reach out and risk our comfort we need to act and we have acted. Those times we have acted have been the times of our greatest glory andgrowth.
Is growth always measured in numbers of new members? How do we explain a little group of parishoners in a carding mill in a little country berg called Manchester. Where was the “hedge” in the risk when they built the Chapel? When the church nearly folded its doors in the 50’s where was the “hedge” in risking the status quo and reahing out, as well as sticking it out even though common sense said close up shop. Most of us never risked a thing when the education wing and the old Sanctuary was built during the 60s. In fact, there were a very small number of people who funded an extrodinarly large program in less than 10 years to build those facilities in order to be welcoming when Salem in Ballwin, Valley Park, Ellisville, Salem in Ladue and others that could have captured the growth in the area did not risk responding to God’s call.
There were many who felt that the church was on the wrong track when we recently added on with a larger sanctuary and education space. Remarkably, many of the comments at the time were the same as we are seeing now. The most amazing miracle of all that occured with the latest addition to our facility is illustrated by this: many of our fellowship believed that we should spend our money and efforts towards missions and ministries. They questioned, understandably so, would the facility result in growth. As a direct result of our last expansion, the music program, education program (all generations), youth minsitries, and our thithing, not to mention growing to over 250 minsitries, occurred. This I believe is the greatest mircale and testemnet of God’s power that I may ever witness.
My friends we had no “hedge” in thie risk we took and we have none now. What we have is a “call”. Now more than any other time in my life I believe it is important for us to reach out. Are we risking financial ruin? not at all. Are we risking ridicule? not at all. Are we risking legal or political backlash, not at all. So what is it that we are risking? Sharing fishes and loaves to feed the multitude? yep. A place that allows us to reach in to the community in a Christian way from a position where the unchurched can enter into a faithful environment on their terms? yep.
I will always support our church sharing in its abundance no matter how uncomfortable we might feel. Our personal discomfort pales to that of those we might serve through this CCLC. Our personal discomfort pales to the gift that God gives us daily. Most of all our personal discomfort pales to the sacrifice Christ made for us.
Oh, it will be nice to know all the facts that we can about the CCLC and some of us will want those not because we don’t believe in in the idea or agree with Dave’s soap box ramblings, but because asking these questiions lets us warm up in the on deck circle before we approach the plate. What I believe of all of us at MUMC is that we are Christians that need to be in the ball game, not serve as spectators. So ask all the questions but dont expect them to help you hedge your bet. Your faith is your hedge and that is all you have.
As for the CCLC it is a great continuation and it is certainly not the end of MUMC . Try these on for the future; a new youth facility, a cluster of regional minsitry incubator buildings, a senior center, a theatre, a museum and united methodist research center, an emergency managment center, a television, radio, and video production studio, publishing company, a united methodist hostel center, emergency apartments, our own food pantry, our own MRE (meals ready to eat) preparation facility or a missionary training school; all a part of a UM Christian Community Campus connect across the region. Are there numbers for these is there growth in these ideas or are they just dreams. Could we at MUMC use these to further our ministry? yep. Who would pay for all this, we would, and those after us would. The resources are amongst us. The legal tender is called faith, not dollars, hard work, not dollars, prayer, not dollars.
Please do not run from or even balk at the opportunity that the CCLC presents us. We cannot afford not to do this. I have seen and felt first hand what this church can do.
I pray that we can all keep our eye on the big picture and hear the call for us to reach out.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
We are writing from the perspective of members who joined the church in 1967. During our years as members, we have always supported the church with our prayers, presence and gifts.
We have always supported expansion plans. However, with what information we have now, we feel we cannot support the proposed plan for CCLC.
First of all, with a little flexibility, the present space could adequately house all worship services.
We do understand the need for a gymnasium-multipurpose
space. Not having an architect degree, we know that we
do not qualify to make suggestions for how the structure
could become reality, but we will make a suggestion.
We feel that the addition should be attached to the present structure–perhaps on the west side. This would eliminate
traffic problems and allow us to continue using the present kitchen facility.
Now that we own the property on Creve Coeur, let’s think
creatively about how to use it. Some of our thinking along this line would be to first, remodel one of the existing homes as a youth center. Next, construct a nice outdoor pavillion to accommodate outdoor activities such as picnics, car shows,
or any other dream you could dream. Apple butter could be cooked in that space and then canned using the kitchen in the purposed remodeled youth space. What about building soccer or softball fields to bring youth to our facility? Let’s all think
of ideas for this space.
Financially, it does not seem like the right time to assume a large debt. As we all know, the rising oil prices have had a huge impact on our economy hitting the poor, middle-class and retired in a very adverse way. Increased property taxes have also impacted the way our money can and
will be spent. Carl states that our giving is flat. Do we not see a correlation?
After the surveys are compiled, we feel that every church member should be given a ballot in order to make a final decision on this very important expansion project.
After the decision is made, let us remain united working to do God’s work.
Prayerfully submitted,
Bill and Jane
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 am
As a past member of the first “CCLC visioning team,” I see this blog as a healthy and effective way to ask questions and voice concerns on the proposed CCLC.
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
November 25th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
We became members of MUMC in 1965 and worshipped in the Chapel. Small in numbers and there were not many programs for myself and my children. When the new sanctuary (now fellowship hall) was built the congregation grew and there were more programs for us. My children were grown when the present sanctuary was built; but I feel like there are even more Christian activities for children, who are really the future of our church. Please remember we are not building for us; we are building for our children, grandchildren and all those who come after. I am thankful that those way back then took the leap of faith to keep building.
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.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Friends in Christ,
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
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
MUMC - CCLC
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
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Pete, This is exactly the kind of information people are asking for, the kind of information we need to make an informed decision. Thank you
December 6th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Wow, Pete! Thank you for an articulate, informative presentation of the facts. This is exactly the type of information that we, as a congregation, have been wanting. Real answers to the real questions that have been posed. Thanks again!
December 14th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Pete:
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
December 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Pete:
Let me add my Thanks! - for your detailed, informative discussion. You responded well to questions and concerns shown by responders in this Blog, including several of mine. I still have concerns, however, particularly that of traffic flow on an already congested Creve Couer, for parking and from and onto Manchester, and the logistics of moving people between the two bulidings, such as for Sunday school and nursery(ies). Additionally, I am concerned that a “build it and they will come” approach without specific targeting plans for the unchurched, or unserved Methodists, or others we may wish to attract and serve by the CCLC, may be overly optimistic. I do not see this “targeting” to be separate from the construction of the CCLC building, but an integral part of a master plan which includes both, as well as where we see MUMC in the next 3 - 5 years, a “strategic plan” for Seeking, Sharing, and Serving, and making disciples for Christ.
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”.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:04 am
CCLC Committee,
During announcements yesterday, the church conference vote date was said to be March 17. Are you aware that is Parkway and Rockwood spring breaks? I know we will be out of town, and if you’re wanting input from families, it’s unfortunate they might not be around to cast their vote.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
For several years now our congregation has been studying the feasibility of building a Community Christian Life Center. Recently I attended an informational meeting in which the discussion of “risk to the Church” outweighed the long-term opportunities for growth and mission. I admit today that I have also struggled with the financial aspects of this project and whether the Church can and will support this initiative. Since that time I have searched for various messages surrounding risk and faith that have helped me as a leader that I would like to share with you.
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”